It’s a little like choosing a lawyer, or an accountant, only much harder. When choosing a lawyer, for instance, one can look at case records or standing with the bar association. Those in need of accounting help can look for a Certified Professional Accountant, of course, and see how much of a tax refund comes in.
Picking a lobbyist is more difficult. There are no established standards of professional conduct, other than those mandated by the state, and thus no ranking system that might help a customer consider the merits of different candidates.
There is also no concrete way of measuring their work. A client’s bill might pass, but maybe it would have passed anyway — who can say whether the lobbying firm made it happen?
In pitching their services, lobbyists universally talk about attention to detail and relationships with the people who matter. They tout success defending clients among various committees or caucuses, which mostly amounts to inside baseball terminology that business owners don’t have time to wade through. That’s why they are hiring someone: to do it for them.
The folks at Environmental Data Resources, in Milford, know the difficulty of making these decisions. Founded in 1990, the company claims to have compiled “the largest and most accurate database of environmental and historical land use information in the world,” and sells environmental assessments of properties to homebuyers, developers, lenders or government agencies. It now has 20 offices throughout the country, close to 300 employees and generates close to 750,000 reports per year.
Luckily for the company, a few states, including Arizona and California, have begun requiring disclosure of environmental problems in certain instances, such as for home sales. Because EDA has found such rules very beneficial to the company, two years ago it began pushing for similar laws nearby, beginning with Connecticut and Massachusetts.
First Round Draft
As it is with a lot of businesses, EDA chose a lobbying firm on a recommendation from someone they trust. In this case it was their lawyers, from Robinson & Cole, who naturally recommended the lobbying team there.
According to state filings, EDA signed the Robinson & Cole lobbyists last year for $2,083.33 per month, which amounts to $25,000 per year.
The session started out just fine. Both the House and Senate raised bills that would have required property sellers to notify buyers of contamination on or near the site, and EDA representatives testified at a public hearing.
But weeks later, language in the House bill had been completely removed. So in the spring, before the session finished, EDA terminated its relationship with the Robinson & Cole lobbyists, at least for now.
“We were happy with them, but the issue that we were interested in kind of died and went away, so we didn’t see any reason to retain them,” said EDA vice president of marketing Jay Gaines.
That doesn’t sound like a whole lot to be happy about, particularly when the Boston law firm Keegan Werlin, employed by EDA to lobby the Massachusetts Statehouse, seemed to be making more progress. What criteria was EDA using?
Gainer said the firm generally looked for professionalism and responsiveness.
“If they take the time to get to know us and understand our issues, that’s important to us,” Gainer said.
But Gainer acknowledged that EDA had really no idea how far to expect its idea to get with the General Assembly, calling it “the kind of thing I don’t think we have a whole lot of insight into.”
“In Connecticut we didn’t have a lot in terms of concrete expectations, we had hopes,” he added.
Unfortunately, $25,000 per year is a lot to spend on hopes, particularly when there are no benchmarks or criteria to figure whether the money is worth it or not.
So Gaines isn’t sure if the company will try again next year or not. Nor was he sure if it would hire Robinson & Cole again.
“We were pleased with them, we thought they were good, but we might put out an RFP,” he said.
