Chris Marr

I would like to thank Chris Marr for meeting with me and and answering our questions.  Marr is a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and focused (that's my opinion)candidate running for reelection to the State Senate.  He willingly answered each question without dodging any answer.  I recorded the session and did edit some of the longer answers.

Gary asked:  Would you buck your party to support or oppose an issue if you believed it was in the best interest of your constituents?

Marr:   First of all, I think it is a rare occurrence when there isn’t an elected official that at some point votes against their party.  My record has been pretty clear. I don’t think we should just look at the party, we need to look at the stake holders.   If you’re a democrat you have labor stake holders, environmental stake holders, in addition to the party line.  The answer is yes.  On unemployment insurance hikes to increase eligibility for voluntary quits and raising the multiplier, myself and about 6 other moderate democrats voted against my party and killed that proposal on the floor with the head of the state labor council and the higher ups standing in the balcony.  I proposed a worker’s compensation reform bill that Senator Brown actively worked to get every member of my caucus not to sign onto.  I indicated to Boeing I was willing to go ahead.  The Republican caucus, Senator Hewitt, said he wouldn’t have any of his people sign on it because it was a democrat bill.

On environmental issues there are some strains between myself and the environmental community because I have supported a more flexible, renewable energy standard.  They have been very rigid in ideology which I don’t think serves the citizens of the state.  I have been willing to vote against taxes.  I did vote for some. I did vote for the tobacco tax.

If you look at where I am in my caucus relative to my labor voting record I’m down a scale.  If you look at where I am in terms of the expectations of business I’m down the scale.  I think I’m rated in the one third lowest spending legislators by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation because I pick my spots.

I do see a prevalence of legislators who come in and who watch score cards and take total caucus direction.  If you look at the floor of the house or senate and see people look at their laptops many are looking at what the AWB, NFIB or NRA score card tells them they should be voting on issues.  I think that is more troublesome than following the caucus line.  Shouldn’t people be voting the interest of their constituents?  The answer is yes. 

I think that on the bills that matter to me that have to do with things like the business environment and how it affects economic growth and vitality, those are specifically the areas that I am more inclined to break with my caucus.  As a whole, locally my local democrats have been understanding about that.   I think as you go over to Seattle, some of the stake holders there, they have been less so but it’s the folks here that I represent.

Rob asked:  List the two most important issues that you think you can make a difference on if elected and how would you do that.

Marr:  One is restoring economic vitality.  I am talking about Spokane related issues.    My background is around economic development.  I have been involved in every significant economic development initiative in this community over the last decade and a half.   Specifically, the north/south freeway, revitalizing downtown, creation of the University district, aerospace by the airport.  I would say the two are: transportation investments particularly around the north/south corridor and highway 195, and the second thing, growth of the university district and our Health Sciences sector.  Those are the two areas locally I think I will make the most impact on.

If you want to scale up to a statewide level, I would start with us having a more rational economic development strategy which focuses on our strengths as a state.  Our state revenue structure tends to be fixated on a time when we were an agrarian economy.  Many of our tax breaks are focused on things like heating for poultry farms and things like that.  Frankly you can take that $1.8 million and move it to biotech or aerospace and we would be better off as a state.  One is resetting our economic development strategy to line up with the recovery and the other issue is around making reasonable changes in things that drive costs for business.  That’s why I’ve been a proponent of UI reform, worker’s compensation reform, energy reform because I think those represent costs for business.  If we can find a way to bring them down, I think jobs grow.

Bringing a voice to business issues in a reasonable way, not in an ideologically bound way, to my caucus is a role I play, one that needs to be played because there are very few people in either party who have signed both sides of a paycheck.   I have paid worker’s compensation premiums for 20 years, I have been a part of workers comp retro group before so don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.  If you want to deal with transparency in fixing it, fine but don’t do away with worker’s comp retro programs when you don’t know what they do for safety in the work place.  Those are the types of things I think I can correct.

Come back for the rest of the answers...