Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 22, 1995 TAG: 9502220057
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAVID M. POOLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long
Environmentalist Patti Jackson found herself one step behind Coors Brewing Co. as she lobbied against legislation granting amnesty to some polluters.
``I'd meet with legislators in their offices," Jackson recalled, "and they'd say, `Oh yeah, the guy from Coors came by and told me they got slapped with a million-dollar fine in Colorado and that's why we need this bill in Virginia.'''
The Coors story was a big reason the General Assembly voted to make Virginia one of five states with amnesty laws, which give companies legal protection if they voluntarily disclose pollution problems.
But the story was not as straightforward as Coors' lobbyists apparently made it seem. The fact that legislators depended on it, without checking the details, illustrates the way lobbyists can influence a time-pressed General Assembly through what one lawmaker has termed a "creative interpretation" of the facts.
"There's a lot of misrepresentation," Del. Jay DeBoer, D-Petersburg, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch this month. ``... With the flow of what we get across our desks, very few people have time to go back and check information."
Coors was fined $1 million in 1983 for 189 air pollution violations at its brewery in Golden, Colo., but the fine was reduced to $237,000 on appeal. Moreover, the director of the Colorado Health Department disputes the company's claim that the penalty was the result of information that Coors disclosed voluntarily.
Jon Goldman, a spokesman for Coors, said the state is trying to claim credit for discovering the violations out of embarrassment over punishing a company that was trying to do the right thing. "Any claim this was not voluntary is totally fabricated," Goldman said.
But some Virginia lawmakers had no idea the issue was disputed, and didn't know that Coors paid only a fraction of the fine.
"I don't know if it would have changed my vote, but it sure would have made me take a much more careful look at that particular bill," said Del. Clifton "Chip" Woodrum, D-Roanoke.
"The truth comes out," said Jackson, a lobbyist with the Lower James River Association, "but the damage is already done."
Lobbyists provide a vital service in helping legislators understand dozens and dozens of complex issues that come before the assembly. But a lobbyist is naturally going to present facts in a light most flattering to his or her client. The trick, Woodrum said, is for the lobbyist to make a case without being misleading. Otherwise, "you take measure of that person and discount what they tell you."
An insurance regulation bill suffered a swift death on the Senate floor this month after a lobbyist warned it would impose a $5 million tax liability on the Virginia Insurance Reciprocal, a pool of professional liability coverage for lawyers and physicians.
The lobbyist, John William Crews, told senators that the reciprocal's accountant, Ernst & Young, had provided a preliminary verbal opinion that the bill would have tax consequences.
Based on Crews' representation, two senators - Thomas Norment of Williamsburg and Jack Reasor of Bluefield - allowed their names to be used on one-page alerts placed on each senator's desks.
"SB 750 constitutes a TAX INCREASE," the alert stated. ``... In fact, if SB 750 had been in effect in 1993, one of these reciprocals would have had imposed and paid FIVE (5) MILLION DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.''
In the floor debate, Ernst & Young's preliminary opinion was offered as additional documentation to kill the bill.
But Ernst & Young had not endorsed the $5 million figure.
Robert E. Henley, a managing partner in the firm's Richmond office, acknowledged that he agreed the bill ``could'' have tax consequences, but said he provided no dollar estimate.
Crews came up with the $5 million figure on his own, based on the insurance group's 1993 federal tax return, according to John P. Domeika, a law partner of Crews' who helped Crews lobby on the bill.
"The way we represented it is that it was up to a $5 million hit," Domeika said. "That's a best guess of what it would be."
But state Insurance Commissioner Steven T. Foster accused the lobbyists of "contriving" the tax liability issue.
"They had to resort to fabrication," Foster said. "It was designed to create a false impression in the minds of the senators. I can't blame the senators. They relied on the accuracy of what they had been told."
Crews is no ordinary paid lobbyist, but has ties to the insurance reciprocal. He is a senior officer in several companies that administer the reciprocal and is a partner in a law firm that handles the reciprocal's accounts.
"It's always fair game to lose a bill," Foster said, "but it's not fair when you lose one because a law firm misrepresents the facts. It gives rise to the question: What do they have to hide?''
Crews could not be reached for comment.
Domeika stood by the lobbying effort and the $5 million estimate, adding that he believed that a forthcoming Ernst & Young written opinion on the matter will resolve any questions.
Norment - one of two senators who lent his name to Crews' efforts - said he had nothing but the highest regard for Crews' integrity.
But Norment said he, too, is eager to see the Ernst & Young opinion.
"I will be horribly chagrined if it turns out not to be true," he said.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1995
by CNB