Helen Sommers: An Oral History

pg. 160 Barry Sehlin
I was named co-chair of the House Appropriations
Committee and, of course, Helen continued
as the other committee co-chair. Rep. Tom Huff
(R-26 th ), who was the Republican Caucus co-chair in
the first two years of this tie, did not seek reelection
after 2000. That first session (1999) in the tie was
confusing. Initially, the two caucuses had to figure
out how it would work. From details about office
assignments all the way to the more major issues
on how to get legislation passed, how do you make
the session function?
Now, Helen was the only legislator who experienced
both House ties in history; 1979-80 and again
1998-2001. Having the experience of someone like
Helen Sommers was incredibly valuable; and of
course Helen was willing to share her knowledge
of the 1979-80 tie with Speaker Chopp as well as
Speaker Ballard. She remembered the procedures
and relationships of the previous tie. So, it’s not
enough just to have the knowledge, but the willingness
to share it with both sides.
I wasn’t in Olympia during the 1999-2000 sessions
of the 49-49 tie. When I came back, it was a great
surprise to all that the final election count created
yet another tie! For the Appropriations Committee,
Helen and I had a good working relationship from
our previous service together. We always worked
well together, and, our political views weren’t all that
divergent. As co-chairs, we each had to represent
the interest of our caucuses. We were both faced
with a situation where, when the session is done,
you have to pass the budget.We were determined
to do what we needed to do to get the votes from
our caucus. Our own political perspectives weren’t
all that different.
In fact, in some ways, Helen was probably
more fiscally conservative than even some of the
Republican members. She understood where the
dollars were and she would not support even policy
issues in which she agreed strongly. If she didn’t
see where the money was coming from, she would
not support it. In my mind, that’s what it takes to
be an effective chair of the Appropriations Committee.
She always focused on what would work for
the state and what the revenue would allow. There
are a lot of people who have great rhetoric about
how conservative they are, but when it comes to
something they want, they’re willing to support it
regardless of the cost.
We all have some particular interest of our own.
Higher education was certainly one of her focuses,
as well as some other social issues – dealing with
children’s health and teen pregnancy were high on
her list of concerns. But still, she’d always want to
know where the money was coming from and how
much it was going to cost. She’d make sure they’d get
something in the budget. She always made the case
that teen-pregnancy often increased welfare costs.
Helen did not agree with the idea of passing
legislation without funding in hopes that just
down there in the future, it would be funded. If
it was something she supported or not, if it was
going to pass, she’d make sure it was going to be
properly funded.
Most legislators who have been in the position
of a budget committee chair become pretty critical
of dedicated funds. It limits flexibility. That
certainly was Helen’s position. Things will change
in the future; so in the end, whether it’s a “Rainy
Day Fund” or any other sort of dedicated fund,
to sequester resources for some purpose that seem
important today, in five or 10 years from now, it
may not be that important. And, we will need those
funds for something else.
I knew Helen very well and I respected her
leadership and I appreciated her knowledge; her
corporate memory, if you will. I don’t ever remember
hearing her say anything critical about anyone. She
would make clear her disagreements with people,
but she’d never complain, and she’d make it work.
How to phrase her impact: Wherever Helen was
and just the fact that she was in the Legislature was
a moderating influence. When I would go into my
Caucus to talk about an issue, if I could go in and
say “Helen Sommers thinks this or that, the members
of my caucus would be swayed. I think that’s
interesting that the Republican Caucus thought
that highly of her.
The same applied everywhere in the Legislature.
People knew that if Helen Sommers had a strong
opinion and made a decision about the question,
she only made that decision based on her experi-