By: Eileen Oni
This past September, members of the Rutgers community gathered at the Eagleton Institute Science and Politics workshop to hear words of wisdom and personal stories during a question and answer session with the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey Governor. This session was moderated by the Associate Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics, John Weingart. The honorable Whitman served as governor of New Jersey from 1994-2001, where she focused her administration on environmental issues within the state. She was then tapped by the Bush administration to head the EPA from 2001 to 2003. Currently, she is the founder and president of the Whitman Strategy Group an environmental policy consulting firm.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="214"]
Honorable Christine Todd Whitman[/caption]
To begin the event, Ms. Whitman began recounting experiences from within New Jersey politics and her time as President of the New Jersey Board of Utilities and Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. As EPA director and representative for the United States, Ms. Whitman was involved in the negotiations of the Kyoto protocol, with the intent to modify the protocol and even agreeing on a carbon cap (favored by President Bush for its success in Texas). However, upon her return, she was notified that the administration had reversed their stance on the protocol, which she believed, cost the US its reputation for being the world leader on environmental issues.
The conversation was then transitioned to the overall process of the EPA. Leading the EPA is a difficult job, and to others may seem like quite a challenge without a scientific background. When asked about this issue, Ms. Whitman said that she relies on the majority rule of scientists and converses with both scientific advisory boards and industry leaders. Ms. Whitman noted that while the EPA was generally a flexible agency, it has very descriptive rules. This was especially the case for each new piece of regulation, where a cost benefit analysis was required. This, while difficult to do at times, was necessary especially within a broad government entity that affects so many industries. Additionally, the EPA enforced the consequences of being out of regulation compliance by the loss of EPA supported federal grants such as transportation funding.
One interesting question was about the mindset of the EPA with respect to regulatory policy for industry and the public. Ms. Whitman responded by suggesting that when making regulatory policy, one needs to see the big picture while also understanding that words and commitments affect everyone differently. This subsequently lead to a question regarding science communication, where groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists press upon getting individuals to understand the bigger picture, such as how watershed run off indirectly affects individuals or how clean air and open space can be an overall health benefit. Ms. Whitman pressed that as individual scientists it is important to get involved and explain to the public environmental issues in real terms, bringing them back to a personal level. This is something that can occur at the state level, but broader governmental challenges will require a multinational effort coordinated from meetings such as the G20 conference.
we soon realized that as a swing district, it is very important to keep decisions on legislation within the common interests of constituents, balancing their views with your own
As discussed in my last post about shadowing Congressman Leonard Lance (NJ-07), legislators often have to meet many demands from committee meetings to fundraising events. This leaves very little time to read through lengthy pieces of legislation. Because of this, many legislators rely on staffers, lobbyists, the Congressional Research Office and each other to make decisions that will affect their constituents and subsequently their tenure as legislators. So, to get a taste of this environment, the Eagleton Institute coordinated a congressional simulation exercise developed by Joshua C. Huder Ph.D., a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. This exercise grouped members of the audience posing as congressional members who represented safe and swing districts. Armed with a brief description of the congressional member’s political background, key positions, and home district overview, each group set out to “vote” on six bills with the aim of maintaining electable poll numbers (>50%). The bills ranged from budget resolutions to consumer transportation and financial acts. For each voting session, congressional members (groups) were given 10 minutes to review a synopsis of a bill and options on how to vote. Following each voting session, congressional members were immediately given their poll numbers and briefly discussed how each congressional member made their decisions. Many groups relied on each congressional member’s political descriptions to make their decisions, however at times, the voting patterns were influenced by group member personal preferences as well as plenty of over thinking! As a member of the group representing Congresswoman Juanita Smalls (R-TX), we began by basing our decisions on the personal descriptions of the congresswomen. After a few hits to our electability poll numbers, we soon realized that as a swing district, it is very important to keep decisions on legislation within the common interests of constituents, balancing their views with your own. It was surprising to realize how much polling influences the decisions on legislation more so than its effects at a larger scale. Overall this was a fun, sometimes stressful, engaging exercise that emphasized, at least in a swing district, to consider all voices of your constituency, the essence of public service.
Following the exercise everyone sat down for a networking luncheon with Eagleton guests, Nancy Becker, a retired program development associate for the Eagleton’s Center on the American Governor, Fern Goodhart, a 30-year veteran of New Jersey’s Public Health Community, Jane M. Kenny, the founder and managing partner of the Whitman Strategy Group, and Patrick Riccards, chief communications and strategy officer for the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.
At the conclusion of this and many science policy related Eagleton events, it left me with a more sophisticated knowledge of policy work at the intersection of science and politics, specifically on some of the factors that go into congressional voting patterns, and the minds of leaders in environmental policy. This event for me and I hope others actively maintains interest in science policy and continues to motivate budding and veteran scientists to be politically active and engaged, which may be needed now more than ever!