| Plexus Consulting Group | Articles by Plexus Authors | ||
|
Adding Value Through Government Relations |
|||
|
Author
|
|
The downsizings that have affected corporate America during the past seven years have caused drastic reductions in the ranks of mid-level management, generally with those in "noncore" business activities taking the hardest hits. Corporate government relations departments typically have fallen into this category. This represents both good and bad news for trade associations. With fewer people to perform the necessary corporate government relations functions, companies logically must turn for help to outside resources -including trade associations. The problem is these corporate cutbacks have not been limited to personnel reductions. Budgets have also been hit, with the consequence that those responsible for managing a company’s trade association membership are becoming much more selective about where they put their association dues. Association managers need to be alert to the problems and opportunities this situation represents. By adroitly addressing the government relations needs of its members, an association can be assured of maintaining and maybe even increasing, its membership. If not, it risks entering the growing ranks of associations suffering from shrinking membership and budgets. In taking on this task, an association manager needs to have both diplomatic and sales skills. One major American corporation has developed a formula for evaluating its association memberships, which is probably representative of how most companies operate. In this formula, one of the principal considerations is the extent the association is effective in serving the corporation's government relations needs. From an association manager's perspective, this attitude can create problems if each corporate member of the association is pulling in a different direction. The challenge is to design a government relations program that meets the needs of the majority, while convincing those who might not be entirely satisfied that the program's advantages outweigh its disadvantages. It is here where many association managers give up. Simply defining the issues that are of common interest to an association's membership can sometimes be a problem. Or, if the issues can be defined, the problem might lie in reaching membership agreement on what needs to be done. One way to address these potential problems, particularly if an association is just beginning a government relations program, is to put into place an information monitoring and analysis program where policy developments are identified and explained in terms of how they will affect the business interests of the association's members. Feedback from members should be solicited in order to determine which issues seem to be of concern to the greatest number. Over a period of time, ranging from a few months to a year, a consensus will inevitably begin to emerge as to the issues most important to the association. Ideally, association members may also agree on a common position for some or all of these issues. As and when some of the more important issues are identified and debated, the membership or subgroups of the membership may be ready to undertake an advocacy program. For this to happen, the association manager needs to have developed a government relations strategy and plan of action that involves the membership, addresses their needs and clearly defines the value added role of the association. However, too often associations do not reach this point. They do not even attempt to consider developing such a program because of the "special" nature of their membership. This may be because the members themselves, or the industry they represent, are too small to feel they could be effective in making their voices heard. Or, the opposite. The association's members are too large and self-sufficient to need help from the association. None of these concerns arc valid -- any and all associations can add value in the public policy arena. Following are two case studies of advocacy programs that illustrate some of the various roles associations can play in serving the government relations needs of small and large companies alike. An association representing small companies in a small and relatively new service industry learned of a federal government policy initiative that would move massive amounts of new funding into programs that essentially offer the same service. Policymakers had ignored the existence of these companies, which had grown since their origins in the early 1970s to become a $700 million industry covering 40 states. The government program would be offered at the taxpayers' expense, which meant that a large expansion of the program could wipe out many of these private businesses. Because the industry was relatively small, new and not very well known, its first challenge was to prove its credentials. This was done under the auspices of the association. All the vital statistics on the industry and its impact on the U.S. economy were compiled. Furthermore, the association also documented that there was considerable overlapping of the services offered by government and the private sector and that in words echoed by more than one government employee, the government-subsidized programs were out to put their private sector counterparts out of business! The second challenge for the industry was to construct a public affairs strategy and marshall enough grassroots support to counter the opposition of the very powerful government employees labor unions as well as state government interests-both of which wanted the funds contained in this large, new federal program. Working as an interface for the industry with both the administration and Congress, the association devised a position paper based on the strategy of "partnering" that there were roles for both the public and private sectors. It supported this strategy through the organization of a nationwide grassroots campaign consisting of letters to the relevant executive agencies and to Congress, visits to Congressional offices and testimony before the appropriate committees on Capitol Hill. The partnering concept was written into the administration's legislation that was submitted to Congress. Government labor union support initially proved too powerful to show much progress. However, after the 104th Congress was elected, the association succeeded in finding support for new legislation that cut funding for these federal programs, while mandating that they work with the private sector whenever possible. In the course of undertaking, these actions, the association won a 0 federal agency grant for organizing a series of roundtable discussion groups nationwide designed to focus on the need to promote public-private partnering. Success stories were written of instances where partnering has been made to work and a plan of action outlined as to how this type of activity can and should be promoted. As a fringe benefit to these activities, a number of association members succeeded in winning federal government contracts of their own! Two amendments to cancel a major government-funded program were expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives as part of Congress' budget cutting efforts. The association representing the industry that is most directly dependent on this program was mobilized to coordinate the lobbying efforts of the major companies in the industry, the relevant federal agency, Congress and Congressional staff. Its function was to keep track of supporters, opponents and fence sitters, as well as comments and actions needed to gain support. The association maintained the official House whip count and worked closely with the relevant Congressional Committee staff up to the time of both votes. As a part of this effort, the association developed a comprehensive database, including all 435 members of the House of Representatives, covering their voting records on the issue, key committee assignments and caucus membership, along with a series of fields to manage lobbying feedback. With this structure, the association was able to input individual member votes on the two amendments two hours after the votes were taken. It generated timely, accurate and comprehensive vote analysis including votes by committee, by caucus, freshmen, women, state delegations and analysis of how votes compare to past votes and whip expectations. The principal lobbying efforts were conducted by the government relations staff of the member companies as well as the Congressional liaison office of the federal agency. Because of the critical monitoring, analytical and coordinating role served by the association, the industry succeeded in lending off these proposed budget cuts by large margins. In fact, the final vote counts showed that Congressional support for the program had increased to record levels. These case studies of two very different industries represent a broad array of areas where associations can add value to the government relations needs of their members. A checklist of advantages might include: Grassroots mobilization: associations are ideal vehicles to launch educational campaigns designed to mobilize public support around a given policy issue and/or develop public interest coalitions; -- Added clout when corporations are small or industry is new and/or small; |
|
Reprinted by Permission