Latest / Real State / Building Credibility into Public Service

Transcript

Building Credibility into Public Service · Real State

• 0:00
  Credibility is really currency for ourselves, for the members.
• 0:04
  I think our job is not to create certainty where it doesn't exist.
• 0:08
  This is Real State, a podcast from CSG South.
• 0:14
  Join us as we talk with policymakers and public leaders shaping state level decisions across the South
• 0:21
  and explore how ideas move from policy to real impact.
• 0:26
  Hello, welcome to Real State, and I'm your host, Lindsey Gray.
• 0:35
  Recently, we have the privilege of recording a few real-state episodes at the Southern Legislative
• 0:41
  Conference. This is where legislative leaders and professional staff from across our 15 member states
• 0:47
  and beyond have gathered to share ideas and strengthen state government.
• 0:53
  One topic that comes up repeatedly, whether we're talking about leadership,
• 0:57
  policy making, or public trust, is credibility.
• 1:01
  In today's environment, institutions are often judged before people even walk through the doors.
• 1:07
  That makes credibility one of the most valuable assets any public servant can build,
• 1:12
  not only for themselves, but for the state governments that they represent.
• 1:17
  Joining me are two staff leaders from the Missouri Senate, who think about
• 1:22
  credibility from different, but complementary perspectives. Patrick Baker is the Senate
• 1:28
  administrator for the Missouri Senate and oversees many of the operational and administrative functions
• 1:34
  that help the Senate serve both the legislators and to the public.
• 1:38
  Josh Norberg serves as assistant director of Senate research, where he helps lawmakers
• 1:45
  develop sound public policy and provides non-partisan research and analysis throughout the legislative process.
• 1:53
  Patrick, Joshua, thanks for joining us and welcome to real-state.
• 1:58
  Thanks for having us. Thank you.
• 1:59
  Let's begin with a broad question. When you hear the phrase "build credibility in public service,"
• 2:06
  what does that mean to each of you? Patrick, let's start with you.
• 2:10
  Credibility is really currency for ourselves, for the members.
• 2:14
  The in the Missouri Senate, I serve as the administrator and including the members
• 2:21
  and their staff. It's a 200-person organization, and so we have credibility inside the organization,
• 2:30
  right, because it's a business as well as a legislative body. And so we have to function,
• 2:36
  we have HR and we have accounting department, and we have to work together as colleagues.
• 2:41
  And then we work and serve at the pleasure of the members of the Missouri Senate.
• 2:46
  And so for them, their credibility has an institution and currency with each other, right?
• 2:53
  If they are not trusted by their colleagues early on in their career, it taints that relationship.
• 3:00
  So it's the currency in which we trade day to day.
• 3:04
  Josh, you spend much of your time supporting the policy process itself.
• 3:08
  How do you think about credibility from that perspective?
• 3:11
  So yeah, I'm in the Senate research office, and what we do is really help the legislators in that,
• 3:17
  their priorities through the legislation. And so what I really think it's about is them trusting your
• 3:23
  judgment. That comes from a process where you are reliable every day, you show up and you work hard,
• 3:31
  you tell them honestly what you think the problems are, what their priorities are,
• 3:38
  and you follow through on your commitments and you have humility to say, I don't know when you don't know.
• 3:43
  And so over time when you do that, that builds credibility, I feel like it's more of a feeling
• 3:49
  than an evidence base. It's evidence-based, but it's not based on your degree or
• 3:54
  where you came from. It's based on them seeing you help them navigate the process all the way through.
• 4:01
  And so if they can't trust your judgment, then that's really, you know, what are we doing there?
• 4:09
  You know, we're there to help them. And so they need us to be credible. And they want us to be
• 4:15
  and they're looking for it. People often say credibility isn't something you're given. It's something you
• 4:20
  earn, Patrick, in legislative leadership, what actions actually build credibility with members,
• 4:27
  staff and stakeholders over time? Yeah, I don't think there's a shortcut. I think it is, it's the key
• 4:33
  there is time. It's being honest about what you're going to deliver and how you're going to deliver,
• 4:40
  and then what you're going to deliver. Managing those expectations for me with my two
• 4:47
  constituencies that I mentioned earlier, you have the staff and you have the membership.
• 4:53
  And then the members interact with their colleagues. And so you have to, as Josh said, sometimes
• 5:02
  we have to say, I don't be afraid to say, I don't know. If you provide inaccurate information,
• 5:10
  sometimes it can be viewed as malicious like you have an agenda or you're too eager to just
• 5:16
  answer the question. And so I have to, when folks come in my office, I have to remind myself, I don't
• 5:24
  know what their intent is by their question. And I shouldn't really assume that I need to
• 5:30
  ask the questions I need to ask. And if that means that I have to take more time to get back to
• 5:38
  them and answer the question, then that's what needs to happen. So I can provide them the best
• 5:44
  answer possible. Is there a moment in your career where you realized credibility could take years
• 5:50
  to build, but only moments to lose? Yes, but not in the traditional sense. I think when we think,
• 5:58
  when we hear that question, I think back to a few years ago, trust was, trust was given to me as an
• 6:06
  example of marbles in a jar, right? And we have to have a relationship and we build that relationship
• 6:13
  over years. And for every act that we have that's good, you get a jar and you get a marble in my jar
• 6:20
  and vice versa. And then in one swift act of defiance or maliciousness, that trust can just be
• 6:29
  eroded, that jar just gets knocked off the table and then all the marbles are scattered. But
• 6:36
  I realize to your question, I realized that that can be lost, not in that manner, but in Missouri,
• 6:44
  we have term limits. And so it's not that the trust was lost. Sometimes it's not present. And that's not
• 6:54
  maliciousness on the person I'm interacting with, that they don't know me. And so why I may have
• 7:01
  taken it for granted that next year's my 27th legislative session and it's my 10th as administrator.
• 7:07
  And I know that I do, or I believe that I do well for the body. And then I've interacted with past
• 7:16
  senators very well or done a good job for them. I've never interacted with this senator or their staff
• 7:23
  member. And it's not that they don't trust me. It's that the trust or the credibility isn't present
• 7:30
  yet. And so term limits vacates that credibility sometimes, but not in that traditional sense. It's
• 7:40
  not that I've lost it. It's just that I have zeroed out and I have to earn it again with the new member,
• 7:45
  are there staff? And Josh, let's talk about policy. Legislators face increasingly complex issues
• 7:52
  from artificial intelligence to cybersecurity to work for shortages. How do professional staff
• 7:58
  ensure legislators receive information they can trust, especially when there's no shortage of
• 8:04
  competing data and opinions? Well, I think it just takes into
• 8:08
  a little discipline really. In our office, we we use primary sources as much as possible,
• 8:15
  especially with the emergence of technologies like AI. There's not always a definitive answer,
• 8:21
  you know, in a legal field, you know, you hear lawyers all the time saying, well, it depends.
• 8:26
  And that really is true. And so I think our job is not to create certainty where it doesn't exist.
• 8:32
  Our job is to tell them what we know, tell them what we don't know and help them navigate what the
• 8:39
  trade-offs are. And, you know, they need information, but they don't want us to make it up, right? They're
• 8:45
  trying to make the best policy they can. And so, you know, we just just have to stay disciplined and
• 8:53
  not give in to pressure to try to give an answer if you think that there is one or if there's not one.
• 8:57
  And so, you know, I just think you need to stay in your lane and keep your eye on the ball and not
• 9:07
  make it up basically because they can smell that and they're always paying attention. And they need
• 9:13
  you to be the anger there for, you know, reliable information. How important is it that legislative
• 9:20
  staff remain trusted as non-partisan experts, regardless of which party is in control?
• 9:26
  Well, it's everything. I mean, legislatures are permanent institutions, but the legislature
• 9:33
  legislator is coming to go. So the minute we break the trust, then, you know, it's kind of over,
• 9:41
  you know, for, you know, leaders have a responsibility, especially in our roles.
• 9:48
  There's a lot, there's layers to credibility, right? I have my credibility as an individual, but we have
• 9:53
  it as an office as well. And so, I think us as leaders have to, you know, enforce that non-partisan
• 10:01
  ship, especially. We tell all of our new staff. That's one of the first things we tell them,
• 10:06
  how the importance of maintaining neutrality. We don't really do social media. We don't, of course,
• 10:12
  we have opinions, but we don't post them. We don't talk about them. We don't get our way.
• 10:18
  So as leaders, we need to do that because if one person in your office, you know, violates that
• 10:24
  trust, then it can impact everyone else in the office. I could be the most credible person there,
• 10:29
  and they'll still distrust us because, you know, they had, you know, some incident with someone. So,
• 10:34
  it's really the most important part of what we do, because without that, everything else just,
• 10:41
  you know, goes by the wayside.
• 10:43
  CSG South brings together not only elected officials, but also the professional staff who makes
• 10:49
  legislatures function every day. Patrick, what role do professional staff play in strengthening
• 10:56
  the credibility of an institution? You know, the senators rely on the answers that we may look up
• 11:04
  for them, but also it's not just our interaction with the senators. The legislative activities
• 11:11
  isn't solely contained within the legislature. The governor's office, for example, gets to weigh in
• 11:18
  on whether or not there's going to be a veto, and because the governor gets to say there in the
• 11:22
  matter, the governor gets to say during the process. And so often the senators are interacting with
• 11:28
  the executive branch departments. And so, you know, building that credibility without bias is
• 11:37
  important. And we have to realize that when the senators come in and ask us questions,
• 11:43
  they, they're taking that information and they're going and they're using it. And so,
• 11:51
  if we presume why they're asking, if we presume intent, we presume an outcome, we might introduce
• 11:57
  our own bias. And so, we have to explore the topic with them. I've not always been the administrator
• 12:04
  of the Senate. Point in my career, I was a lobbyist. I did work for private associations. I worked
• 12:11
  for the executive branch and departments. And I've received briefings from staff. And we had a
• 12:19
  staff member, although not intentionally, appeared unsure or was guessing in a manner,
• 12:27
  so to speak, about the information they were providing. And they got stopped by their supervisor.
• 12:34
  They said, okay, you can't do that. Patrick's internalizing the information. He's getting ready to go
• 12:39
  across the street and brief, you know, XYZ official. They're going to use that information. So,
• 12:45
  this is our time to get it right. So, we have to stop. We have to make sure we get it right.
• 12:49
  So, in our role now, I don't take that for granted. When they come and they're asking about
• 12:55
  the process, how this legislative process works, I don't presume what they're going to do with it.
• 13:02
  I just have to know that I've given them the right information or I'm directing them to the right
• 13:08
  person. And honestly, sometimes they forget what my role is, my role is not legislative. And they'll
• 13:14
  come and ask me a question about policy. And I have to be careful not to cross that line. So,
• 13:22
  I in my past life helped shape policy. I don't do that now. I work equally for the majority of
• 13:29
  minority members. And I have to stay in my lane. And I have to direct them toward the Senate
• 13:35
  Research Department or the Center Appropriations Department to help them with those policy questions.
• 13:40
  If it's a process question, I have to direct them toward the Secretary of the Senate.
• 13:44
  And so, by not venturing outside my lane, then I gain that credibility with the members.
• 13:52
  And Josh, would you add anything to that from the Research and Office perspective?
• 13:58
  Lizzie, I think the only thing I would really add is just the importance of continuity.
• 14:01
  We've got a lot of staff. We've got decades of experience. And we've been lucky enough in our office
• 14:09
  to keep people around long enough to gain institutional knowledge. And I think of the role of staff
• 14:16
  as like the bones of the place, right? We're not the muscle. We're not meant to be seen. We don't
• 14:21
  move the body, but we're there to help the things stand up straight. And so, we keep everything
• 14:28
  going, but we're not there other than to help them. And so, we use our, you know, we have
• 14:36
  term limits in Missouri. I know some other states in the South do as well. The legislature's come
• 14:42
  from all sorts of walks of life. And so, we're the ones who retain a lot of the knowledge and the
• 14:48
  policy expertise. And so, we can, you know, issues come and go, they come back up. We can tell them
• 14:55
  what the historical context is, what we've tried before, what the pitfalls were. And so, I think
• 15:00
  developing that and, you know, building that into the institution is crucial for helping them do
• 15:06
  their jobs. In an era of social media and rapid news cycles, what practices help ensure that speed
• 15:14
  does not come at the expense of accuracy or integrity. And how do you help your message break through
• 15:20
  the noise? Patrick, we'll start with you. For us, it's consistency. So, we have a process that's
• 15:27
  followed in the Missouri Senate. And those rules are set down by the body itself or by the administration
• 15:34
  committee. And that's a member. Member committee, standing committee, it has three members of
• 15:41
  the minority, two of the minority, the rules are voted on by the body. And all these things guide us
• 15:47
  through what our process should be. And so, by following that every time after a bill is perfected,
• 15:54
  it has to be engrossed, which means it has to be read by staff to ensure that changes were made
• 16:00
  properly, that it is perfected and it reflects the intent of the body. And so, by following those
• 16:07
  steps every time, we gain credibility with the membership, we gain credibility with the public that
• 16:13
  we're going to have a hearing, we're going to follow the open records, or the public meeting laws,
• 16:20
  we're going to give 24 hour notice. Those things build credibility, that consistency that it can
• 16:26
  be relied upon. Slowing down the process, we don't have laptops in the Missouri Senate for. We don't
• 16:36
  have electronic voting. The idea is that the members still have to pick up a piece of legislation and
• 16:41
  I have to read that legislation. They have to understand it. And it's not just something that's
• 16:47
  pushed out to them that they ignore, that it's a physical copy. And that there are still those
• 16:56
  traditions that we follow. And we follow them with inconsistent manners. And hopefully that
• 17:04
  provides us the same credible product every time. And Josh, anything to add?
• 17:10
  I think it comes down to preparation really. In our office, we have a lot of deadlines. Some
• 17:16
  reasonable some that have. This are policy colleagues across the seven states couldn't test to.
• 17:23
  We have bill filing deadlines, so they don't care if you have a hundred other things to do if they
• 17:28
  ask you the day before for bill, you get it done. We have we draft amendments on the fly on the floor
• 17:35
  and they want them because they want to stand up and offer them. So you need to be quick. But
• 17:40
  but I don't think that you need to sacrifice accuracy for speed. If you prepare, you don't get
• 17:50
  speed by taking shortcuts or skipping work. You do the work beforehand and that allows you to be
• 17:55
  quick when you're asked and when you're called on. At the same time, you need to resist the pressure
• 18:02
  sometimes to be quick and tell them, well, I need a minute to think about this or this is going to
• 18:08
  take a little more time than you want. Because sometimes that's the most credible thing to do. If,
• 18:13
  you know, I'm not going to, you know, do something, you know, it's less than my best quality so that I
• 18:21
  can get it out. I want it to be the best thing because that's what they're going to remember. I'm
• 18:24
  not going to remember that they got it five minutes later. They're going to remember. I got exactly
• 18:28
  what I asked for. The time horizons are sometimes not as tight as they imagine them to be. And so,
• 18:36
  like Patrick said, we're a slow moving floor. We breed our amendments or we have them physically
• 18:43
  distributed. So there's always time they can always stand up. And so if you do need to take the time
• 18:49
  and support to do it, but also if you're not prepared, that's not an acceptable way to ask for time, right?
• 18:56
  Do the work beforehand have a process set up? You know, I in my policy role, I do tax policy.
• 19:04
  And if I'm asked to do a tax credit, I don't think about, but what do I need for this tax credit? I've
• 19:10
  thought up beforehand. What do I need in general to draft a tax credit? So I take what I'm given,
• 19:16
  I can just plug it into the process and get it done quicker than if I'm doing everything from,
• 19:20
  you know, reinventing the wheel every time. So I think if you have a process that works for you and
• 19:24
  you've done the work, you can have both speed and accuracy. But again, don't, I don't think you
• 19:30
  ever need to sacrifice one for the other. Healthy disagreement is part of democracy. People
• 19:36
  won't always agree on policy outcomes. But Josh, how can lawmakers maintain credibility with constituents who
• 19:42
  strongly oppose a particular vote or policy? Yeah, I don't think credibility requires agreement.
• 19:50
  I think what voters want is a fair process, right? They, of course, you're always going to have,
• 19:57
  you know, a single issue voter or something like that if they disagree, you're lost to them, right?
• 20:02
  But I think if the process is fair and you give people a chance to be heard and you take them
• 20:08
  seriously and you acknowledge the opposing viewpoints and everything's done out in the open,
• 20:12
  people can accept maybe something they didn't quite want, right? But it's when you start doing things
• 20:21
  in the dark or your forced things through, that's when people's hackles gets raised.
• 20:25
  And so I think people just want to be treated fairly. The credibility comes from treating people
• 20:33
  fairly. It's not from, you know, having 100% voting record with one group A or group B, right? So
• 20:39
  I think the importance of, you know, budding people get to committee and, you know, have
• 20:46
  the appropriate time for testimony and giving opposition time on the floor to voice their
• 20:51
  displeasure or what, you know, I think that's the crucial component that we need to keep our eye on.
• 20:57
  Patrick, how should public officials respond when they make a mistake? What distinguish
• 21:02
  she is a response that rebuilds credibility from one that erodes it further in your opinion?
• 21:08
  Lindsey, there's a word for how Senators should act. It's called being Senatorial. I think members can
• 21:15
  interpret that however they want. I know it when I see it. The short answer is they could be honest.
• 21:24
  But I tell them you need to be Senatorial. If they question what does that mean, I tell them they
• 21:31
  already know what it means. They know what it means to be Senatorial. If they stop and they reflect
• 21:36
  about the actions they've taken or the actions they're about to take. And so if they made a mistake,
• 21:43
  be honest about it. A few times over the last couple of years, I've been really proud of the
• 21:49
  Senate body. I can't even tell you the bill issues at the moment because I don't try to pay attention
• 21:56
  to in that way. I pay attention that they're debating. The debate hasn't stopped because when it
• 22:01
  stops, there's a problem either. There's a problem legislatively, procedurally, or there's a problem.
• 22:08
  Our microphones aren't working, right? But they debate and as long as they're debating, the process is
• 22:13
  working. If they've made a mistake and they're honest about it, the times that I've been the most
• 22:20
  proud of the body is that the next day unbeknownst to me, there's a motion to reconsider about they
• 22:26
  took the next the previous day. And I asked someone and they said, well, we discovered a mistake in the
• 22:31
  bill. They've talked to everyone, including the senators who opposed the bill or voted against it.
• 22:38
  Everyone's in agreement, they're going to roll back the bill. They're going to make the change,
• 22:44
  they're going to fix the mistake, and they're going to revoke the bill and no one's going to
• 22:48
  stand in the way. They're going to honor the action the body took to pass the bill. And they're not
• 22:53
  going to renew a filibuster or they're not going to stand in its way as we try to fix it because
• 22:58
  they've come to the decision as a body that they may not be in agreement that the bill should have
• 23:05
  passed, but as individual members, they're not going to stop it because the bill is going to go
• 23:09
  forward and it should be at least the best that it can be. And so I've been very proud they've
• 23:14
  done that several times in the last couple of years. It's a disc hovered mistake. And so to me,
• 23:20
  that's the epitome of being a senator is they are acting senatorial.
• 23:26
  Without getting into specific legislation, are there practices within the Missouri Senate that you
• 23:32
  believe consistently strengthen institutional credibility? Things that have become part of the
• 23:37
  culture rather than just policy. Patrick, we'll start with you. Yeah, early in my career,
• 23:43
  I worked for an individual senator and it was chair of a committee. And at opposing senator
• 23:50
  come in and she asked for a copy of a committee substitute that hadn't yet publicly been distributed
• 23:55
  and I gave her a copy. And after she left someone in the room said, you give her copies of confidential
• 24:02
  substitute and I said, sure, she'll see it soon enough. And if it helps us speed up questions when
• 24:10
  we come to perfection, but on the floor, all the better we are. Because by not giving it to her,
• 24:15
  I upset her and I could damage our odds of passing a bill. In the Missouri Senate,
• 24:25
  if a senator walks onto the floor and asks any staff member, it doesn't matter if they're non-partisan
• 24:31
  staff, it doesn't matter if they're partisan staff, the partisan staff is a opposing party. The senator
• 24:36
  walks in and asks any staff member what bill we're on, what amendment we're on, which substitute we're on,
• 24:43
  what this bill does, what does this amendment do? That staff answers them honestly. And I have not
• 24:51
  found a case where that's not true in my 27 years of being legislature. And it's something that I've had
• 25:00
  new staff come in and comment to me on that they've noticed it and that they're very impressed by it,
• 25:06
  that their boss can walk onto the floor, ask a question of the most partisan staff member of the
• 25:12
  opposing party and they'll get an honest answer. It's something that is so easy to just lie to them
• 25:19
  or not answer because you don't like them, you don't like the politics and partisan staff
• 25:24
  answer that question honestly. And so it's something that's ingesting grained. The members may fight,
• 25:33
  but the staff or the members might fight or disagree, but the staff
• 25:38
  answer those questions honestly. So it gives credibility through all the staff whether partisan or not
• 25:46
  that we're going to be honest and forthcoming with senators when asked questions. And Josh,
• 25:51
  same question for you. What practices within the Senate do you believe strengthen institutional
• 25:56
  credibility? I think the ultimate goal and for institutional credibility is really to create an
• 26:02
  institution that outlasts any single individual that's codified in our, you know, turn limits,
• 26:08
  but also that applies to staff as well. I think Patrick's mentioned we have very specific rules
• 26:17
  and processes we follow. In our office we have a rigorous review process where everything that we
• 26:24
  draft is viewed by more than one or two people before it even gets to the floor and goes through that
• 26:29
  process. So we have every department in our building has an incredibly professional staff with,
• 26:36
  I've not done the math, but it's got to be, you know, decades and decades of experience. And I think what,
• 26:43
  you know, a credit to Patrick and his time as an administrator he sees really made a concerted
• 26:49
  effort to kind of ensure that the goal of the leader is not to have your name on the door. It's to
• 26:54
  make sure that when you're not there anymore that the place goes on as it did before. And hopefully
• 27:00
  better than when you got it. So there's a lot that we do that we don't really think about anymore. And
• 27:04
  that's when it becomes culture, right? So we just do things that way because that's the right way to
• 27:11
  do them. And I think that's what gives the members the confidence that they can come in. They know
• 27:17
  if they talk to the secretaries at the dias, they're going to be doing their job properly. They know
• 27:22
  when they talk to research, they're getting the best possible answer they can get. If they go see
• 27:26
  Patrick, he's going to tell them what they need, whether they can do it or not. And it has nothing
• 27:31
  to do with who they are. So I think that lets them do their job, which is why we're there. And they
• 27:36
  don't have to think about those things. And I think that ultimately leads to the best possible
• 27:42
  policy outcomes because they can really focus on that. And I think we've all done a good job
• 27:48
  of working on that. And it takes the concerted effort by everyone involved.
• 27:54
  For newer legislators and staff members, what habits or principles are most important for establishing
• 28:01
  a reputation for credibility early in their careers? Patrick?
• 28:05
  I know I sound like a broken record, but it's be honest. If you know, if you don't know,
• 28:13
  you find out the answer and you take that time, I've watched centers of the opposing party
• 28:22
  ask their colleagues of questions about insurance. We only have what two or three lawyers in the
• 28:32
  Missouri Senate amendment. And so they get certain questions deferred to them by the criminal
• 28:38
  justice code. And they don't necessarily ask their colleague, that's a fellow Republican or their
• 28:43
  colleague that's a fellow Democrat, they'll ask them because they're attorneys. We might only have
• 28:48
  one senator that knows or in their everyday life deals with banking, right? And so they become
• 28:53
  the subject matter expert. And the members respect that. And so you become a known quantity.
• 29:02
  You know, we have a, we have a partisan staff member who used to be non-partisan staff.
• 29:10
  He is the subject matter expert in the state of Missouri for the foundation formula for education.
• 29:19
  His answers are trusted so much that the sitting governor has placed him on a commission
• 29:28
  to evaluate the current foundation formula. It's, so he is the expert and there of opposing parties.
• 29:37
  Because this staff member is honest every time a elected official comes and asks him. He'll answer
• 29:44
  the questions for representatives and centers alike. Parsons, staff, non-partisan, staff, and I have
• 29:49
  a honest conversation with you. Even though you might be taking an information and trying to
• 29:55
  craft an amendment, uh, that is party opposes. He recognizes, um, that the information he has,
• 30:06
  is vital, but he doesn't hold it hostage, right? He, he equally shares it with all people in the state
• 30:13
  when asked, um, to help try to find a solution for them. Uh, and that, I'd point to him, I point him out
• 30:21
  to our new members and our new staff to say he's an example of what we all should be striving for,
• 30:28
  right? That there is no bias in his answers. Here are the facts. This is what the formula does.
• 30:34
  Yeah. This is what we did in the eighties. This is what we did in the nineties. If you do this, you're,
• 30:39
  you're, you know, essentially double-hold harmless, uh, etc. And so, um, he, he doesn't take that
• 30:47
  for granted that he holds that information, but he doesn't hold it hostage either.
• 30:51
  And Josh, I'm going to toss the same question to you. What habits or principles are most important
• 30:57
  for people involved with the general assembly? That helped, you know, boost credibility early.
• 31:03
  I think particularly for staff members, um, I would, I would focus on being prepared, organized,
• 31:09
  and unfollowed through, right? Um, it's a really easy in our roles to get overwhelmed by workload.
• 31:15
  Um, particularly as session moves on and things are moving quickly. Um, I think if you create a process
• 31:23
  for yourself, whatever that looks like, I have one for myself that may or may not work for someone else.
• 31:28
  But if you can eliminate as many decision points as you can, then you increase your bandwidth,
• 31:34
  right? I, you know, you need to be prepared. Um, no one expects new staff members to be policy
• 31:41
  experts on their first day or the first year or the first five years, really. Um, but if you're not
• 31:47
  prepared or organized, people can sense that immediately. And, um, I think that, um, people
• 31:54
  are always paying attention. They're willing to forget that on a spec miracles. They're willing to,
• 31:59
  you know, forgive you for saying, I need to go look that substantive topic up. But if you can
• 32:06
  be prepared and be organized, then it all becomes easier. Um, and follow through, I think is maybe
• 32:15
  even more important because when you tell a legislator, well, I'm going to look that up and I'll get
• 32:20
  right back to you. Go do it, right? Don't sit on it for a week and be like, Oh, yeah, I'll,
• 32:25
  I'm still working on that. You know, if you have a free moment, go do it and get it to them. Don't,
• 32:31
  don't just sit. Um, I think people, when you tell somebody is particularly in our jobs, if you tell
• 32:38
  them you're going to do something, they expect you to have it done because they're relying on you
• 32:41
  to do it. They, they're not going to forget and expecting you to just not come back to them. So
• 32:46
  I think if you do those things, you're going to build a reputation for yourself. Um, it's not just
• 32:51
  a member that's paying attention. That's, you know, your superiors, your, you know, every senator that
• 32:57
  people talk in the building, of course. Um, so people are paying attention and they know when you're
• 33:02
  prepared, they know when you're reliable and it has nothing to do with your policy expertise. Um,
• 33:08
  of course that comes with time experience, but the other stuff or things you can do on day one
• 33:13
  and you make things so much easier on yourself by doing them. And so I found that to be very helpful
• 33:18
  in my career. Patrick, looking ahead five to 10 years, what do you think will be the greatest
• 33:25
  challenge to maintaining credibility in public service? And what gives you optimism that it can be met?
• 33:31
  You know, I struggled with this one, Lindsey. Um, so I'm a, I'm a gen X in maybe a cusp, uh, I'm an
• 33:38
  X in you born late enough in the gen X that I identify with them, but late enough that I still embrace
• 33:46
  technology, but I probably sound like a boomer when I say AI, right, or social media, like these are
• 33:52
  things that challenge our credibility because you, you're on the defensive. It's, uh, well, I found
• 33:59
  this online, right? Um, or AI tells me this, right? I don't know, I don't know where they've gotten
• 34:06
  the answer. I'm not saying AI's wrong, right? Or they can't do what it does very well on things
• 34:12
  that I've seen it do. But simply because it's, it's, it's, it's online, uh, doesn't make it the truth,
• 34:19
  right? I think of that commercial, uh, uh, I'm a French actor, Bonjour, right? And he's clearly not
• 34:24
  French. And it's like the, what gives me optimism is that, uh, hopefully we're still here doing this
• 34:32
  job and that we're verifying it, um, and that, that verification of the information is what's going to,
• 34:40
  you know, pull us through that. I think AI can do certain things very well, um, but social media has
• 34:47
  a lot of information out there and someone still has to shift, uh, sit through the, uh, the, the,
• 34:54
  the fog and the noise and find that truth, um, on the facts and verify it, um, for the members to use.
• 35:02
  And so we have a dedicated research department to help those members craft or legislation,
• 35:08
  dedicated approach, appropriations department to help them draft budget bills. Um, and so
• 35:14
  technology will advance it, a pace that I can't even imagine and AI will, will find its place,
• 35:22
  eventually in our legislative process. I'm sure of that, um, but you still have to be there,
• 35:28
  right? We have presentations on it here at CSG South, um, and it's trust but verify, right?
• 35:36
  So someone still has to verify it. So I am optimistic that we'll still be needed that, uh, AI won't be
• 35:43
  able to replace us, um, and that because we built, uh, a credible, uh, senate staff that will still be
• 35:51
  utilized. And Josh, I think we're both millennials and on the millennial, Jinx Cusp. So how does this
• 35:57
  resonate for you when looking, you know, five to 10 years ahead? At the risk of being redundant,
• 36:02
  Lindsay, I think I have to also say kind of technology and information overload, um, and being able
• 36:08
  to decipher and pick out what is important. Um, you know, we've got unprecedented access to
• 36:15
  amounts of information and the speed at which you can get it. Um, and that makes it incredibly
• 36:20
  difficult. You know, if I need two hours to go look something up, a member can go to AI and get a
• 36:26
  result to go to Twitter and see someone saying what they want to hear and that takes, you know, 10 seconds.
• 36:31
  So, um, I think that's probably the biggest challenge is breaking through that. And, you know,
• 36:39
  Patrick and I were discussing, um, a number earlier who was upset about a potential policy change.
• 36:47
  We were contemplating in the senate and, um, you know, they had heard it was going to, you know, cost one
• 36:52
  thing or it was going to be one thing and, um, you know, all it takes is to sit down and say, well,
• 36:58
  here's why it's not. And I can, you know, if you walk them through that, that's useful. And I think
• 37:04
  that's also part of the optimism is, um, I think technology and AI makes judgment more valuable,
• 37:11
  not less. You know, you hear about people drafting those of AI and if you can tell, right? These are not
• 37:17
  the tools are not there yet and even once they do get there, um, you still need someone to evaluate
• 37:24
  the, you know, what is important in these, you know, if it's policy research, you know, what do the
• 37:29
  members need to know? They need, they need people to do that. And I think, um, I'm optimistic that,
• 37:35
  you know, our members will see the value in that. Even as AI makes things easier for them in some ways.
• 37:43
  I think it'll, you know, it's a great tool. I use it a lot in my personal life and, um, also, you know,
• 37:50
  for work, but it's a tool. It's, it's not something that's designed to give you the answer. It's, um,
• 37:57
  maybe help me give you a starting place, but you still need someone to, you know, quite frankly evaluate
• 38:04
  whether it's, um, not worth anything or whether it's worth, you know, discussing with the member. So
• 38:09
  I think that's probably what we're all dealing with now and we probably will for quite some time.
• 38:15
  I try to maintain some optimism about it. Um, and I think I have seen no reason to not be at this point.
• 38:22
  As we close, I'll end with a question. We ask all of our guests. What is the best piece of professional
• 38:27
  advice you've ever received? And how does it shape the way that you approach leadership today?
• 38:33
  You know, I was thinking about this one and this isn't the advice I was given personally,
• 38:38
  though I would have loved to. You know, we're in a basketball city, Lindsey, uh, basketball state,
• 38:42
  and I'm a huge spurs fan. And I, I was thinking about Greg Popovich and he's one of the, you know,
• 38:48
  most respected leaders we have today, um, especially in sport, but just in generally,
• 38:53
  and he talks about this idea from Jacob Rees about the stone cutter, um, hammering away on a stone,
• 38:59
  right? You, you hit it, nothing happens. He hits it, nothing happens. And after a hundred hits,
• 39:04
  you know, it hit finally cracks on the hundredth hit. And he knows that it's not the hundredth hit,
• 39:09
  the broken, it was the cumulative effect of all 100. And I think that's how credibility works, right?
• 39:15
  You don't earn it by saying I got a degree. You don't earn it by writing a single memo or drafting
• 39:23
  a particular bill or performing well in a single meeting. It's doing the same things over and over
• 39:29
  every day, working hard. And, um, you know, it's not easy, but you have to have patience and know that,
• 39:37
  you know, every time you do follow through someone's noticing and after 10 years, um, the credibility is
• 39:44
  there, you don't have to worry about it. I think the advice I would give is, you know, just be patient
• 39:50
  and know that what you're doing matters. And if you do it the right way, everything else will take
• 39:55
  care of itself. And you're going to be where you want to be. So I was told halfway through my career,
• 40:03
  there is no, there's no bad news. There's only how we, how we react to it. Um, and so it's,
• 40:11
  it's something I've taken a heart and I've given the same advice to the directors in the Missouri
• 40:15
  Senate. Don't be afraid to come to me with something you think I'm going to be upset about.
• 40:23
  Because if you wait a day or two, I've lost that day or two to work the problem, right?
• 40:27
  I had to think about the problem and how we're going to solve it. Um, in the interim, if there's a delay,
• 40:33
  that's fine. I've got plenty of time to work the problem during session. I don't have that kind of
• 40:39
  time is not a luxury and we might have to pivot and work, solve the problem very quickly. And so,
• 40:44
  to my, Ted, fellow Ted Lasso fans, right? If I, I can't control my emotions, then by all mean, let,
• 40:51
  let our emotions control us, right? And, you know, Ted Lasso's showing sarcasm, Deroi Kent. Um, so
• 40:58
  I have to be very aware that if I'm going to ask them to, um, not be afraid to come and share bad
• 41:06
  news with me, then I have to be very careful to not, uh, let my emotions, uh, ruin the conversation,
• 41:14
  right? That I, my door has to be open. I'm willing to receive the information and then that together,
• 41:19
  we're going to come up with solution and work the problem. Uh, and so I'm asking something of them
• 41:25
  and I have to be willing to give something back and that is, you know, controlling that emotion. Um,
• 41:31
  because we just have to figure out what went wrong, how we're going to fix it, how we're going to
• 41:36
  prevent it from happening again, um, because during session, I have no time to, uh, to sit and think
• 41:44
  for a long time about how we're going to solve the problem. Patrick and Josh, thank you both for
• 41:49
  joining us at SLC this year and for carving out the time to share your leadership, expertise and
• 41:54
  experience. We know the Missouri Senate is in very good hands with both of you. Thank you,
• 42:00
  and thanks for having us. And to our listeners, thank you for tuning in to real estate for more
• 42:05
  conversations like this and more about the work of CHG South, visit CHGself.org. I'm Lindsey Gray.
• 42:13
  Let's keep it real. Thank you for joining us today on real estate, where we keep it real about what
• 42:21
  really matters.
• 42:27
  [silence]