Liberal and Loving It

Governor Ritter – some Q & A

Trying something new - you can listen to the first 45 minutes of the interview here. (It was a 90 minute tape but apparently that's at the slow speed and I used the high speed so it ended at 45 minutes.) Nothing major in the last 15 minutes, that was just about his trips to Argentina and staying at the Mayflower Hotel in D.C. (For the totally oblivious – just kidding.) The meeting was Governor Ritter, Evan Dryer, & me.

This was a lot different from most of my previous interviews. I figure the first one is to let an individual talk and they drive the conversation. But for the 2^nd one, I came in with a bunch of questions and tried to get full answers to those questions. So here's my first effort at an interview I tried to drive.

Governor Ritter consistently answered my questions. He never avoided them nor did he try to change the subject. And an interview scheduled for ½ hour ran a bit over an hour when he had to call it quits. So being hit with a bunch of questions, he did not use the excuse of times up to cut & run. I think this is one of Ritter's most commendable features, he will talk to the points brought up and discuss them in full.

We started on what he called the "grocery bill" and his naming of it is interesting. Clearly to him unemployment for locked out workers, with this bill, was totally wrapped up in the negotiations between the unions and the grocery chains. He first discussed how Governors historically did not pre-announce if they would veto bills and that he has been more open on his inclinations than Bill Owens was. Then he discussed how the house bill that took effect in 2010 was what he was looking for. He didn't say he would have signed it, but he delivered the impression he would have.

He also pointed out the Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill with a July 2009 effect because "they knew" he would then veto it. This is a very credible argument as the Republicans this session have spent most of it trying to just honk anything & everything up. And they've never been accused of being strong supporters of the unions. So very interesting argument that people knew the 2009 date was a deal killer.

With all that said, I asked if he told the legislators that 2009 was a deal killer and he was very clear that his staff had delivered a strong message that it needed to be later, but also that he did not have a direct conversation on this specific topic. Bottom line I think is that the hints from his office were not communicated well and that problem could be primarily due to either end of that discussion. But he also should have sat down with the leadership and told them point blank make it 2010 or it's dead.

We discussed jobs in different ways many times over the hour. Green energy clearly drives the Governor. He started in about how we have jobs coming here because we are the center for green energy and how from Vestas to NREL to a number of others he listed these are quality jobs that are being created now. He clearly views this as a wonderful two-fer in that we are becoming the center for green energy in the country and those companies are providing jobs. Based on what he said I think making us the center for green energy is Ritter's primary driver and the new jobs is a wonderful additional benefit. And long term that is the right priority.

He also discussed a 5 year FICA credit for companies that create 20 or more jobs where the average wage is greater than the state average. This is a really interesting approach as the credit is substantial, is tied to the employee's pay, and exists only as long as the new jobs do. He claims that several companies have located new operations here specifically because of this new law. And as an executive I can say that this is something that would influence what we do. On the flip side, they might want to get the word out as I had never heard of this before – and I'm one of the targets for this.

I started a discussion of newspapers by saying that the daily paper has been the core of investigative journalism in this country for the last 100 years with the rest taking their lead from the work of the daily papers. I then asked him what does he think will happen when the daily papers are no more in 3 – 5 years. He talked first about how he & his wife read the paper every day – but his kids don't. He sees first hand that the web is the only source for the upcoming generations and sees that this is inevitable. He also said that he thinks the blogs are now driving what the daily papers cover (yo Wall Street Journal – Pulitzer Prize story for you – small software company in Boulder with incredible product – call me).

He then talked at some length of the lack of accountability and civility in the blogosphere. What was interesting is the way he talked about accountability he was talking about people being accountable for what they write, not bloggers holding politicians accountable for what they do. It makes sense from his perspective as he (and every other politician) gets hammered mercilessly, and mostly by anonymous posters. (My feeling is toughen up – this is no different from the broadsheets at the founding of our country.)

He did talk about the worry of who is going to cover school board meetings and the many other items like that. He pointed out that school boards have more impact on our lives than most other parts of the government, yet could fall off the radar with the death of newspapers. He does think that out of the blogging community we will see enough reporting done that we will have some good coverage. He also clearly now views talking to bloggers as a key part of getting his message out to the community so I think it's a safe bet he will be communicating more and more on the web (can Ritter's Twitter be far off?).

We discussed small business. He started off on this saying the biggest need he had heard from small businesses was that without credit they were dead. And credit has disappeared. My company does not need credit, but we run up substantial Visa bills between Google and ordering hardware & software – and with reduced limits we have to pay the cards off every 2 weeks instead of monthly. For a company that needs credit to bring in the materials they use to create what they sell this would kill them. So he has put a major effort into making sure credit is available. Critically important work.

I then got the standard "small business is important to us" spiel. So I asked him why the State is unwilling to consider purchasing from small high-tech companies in the state. Governor Ritter was insistent that the State absolutely was open to buying from local companies. When I brought up several specific situations he continued to insist that while a few departments might not be perfect on this issue, that the state was very open on this.

This is where as a blogger I have an advantage over a reporter. With a reporter they can pass on he said/she said but they don't know what's really going on. But I could (and did) tell the governor that I have found the OIT unwilling to even look at our company. Not that they looked and didn't like it, but totally unwilling to look. (If Xcel operated like OIT they would tell us they had all this lovely infrastructure for coal power plants and so would not even look at wind or solar.) Even with this Ritter insisted that the state is open to local small business. I think he does truly believe this and is simply unaware of how his administration is handling this. He might want to talk to Greg Lopez.

This then took us to the topic of CBMS as there are some local companies that tried to step up and offer solutions to this. And of course were told to go away. Ritter agreed that it was a complete disaster and they had gotten Deloitte to fix it. Ritter's view is that for a system this big with a problem this big, they needed a major player like Deloitte. My opinion is they have a total clusterfuck because they decided to create a gigantic system using a major consulting service. I don't expect a governor to understand who to hire to get quality software delivered on time and under budget, but he should have people working for him that do. My guess is Ritter is going to be surprised when this is still an issue 4 years from now. But he thinks they have it under control.

I then brought up the criticism that he tends to go for the safe plays and never goes for the hail mary pass. But with the economy in the toilet, it pretty much demands that we go for some major changes. Ok, if you want to annoy Bill Ritter, tell him he doesn't go for the impossible goals. This got a passionate response. His main point was that you don't get "Las Vegas lights" from him, you just get results. He brought up FASTER, the doubling of alternative energy requirements (and including the REAs in the requirement), and the new education measurement & 5 years of high school legislation.

And you know something… He has a point. We would always like to see more, but there have been some substantial efforts. And I think the education one is the one that actually was the furthest reach and it will have the most impact. Evan Dryer afterwards also brought up the Oil & Gas rules and A-58 which are two other examples. And the fact that A-58 lost makes it an even better example because it's one where he tried to do something that was very difficult and failed. If he always succeeded then he is being too careful.

So we (because I agreed with this criticism) should maybe change it from Ritter never tries for the big win to we would prefer that he did so on a few other issues. Governor Ritter also made the very legit point that substantial change is a multi-year effort to get passed and then takes many years to effect the system. He definitely takes the long view on applying his efforts. So if all of his work over his two terms works out well and bears fruit, then the next Governor will be able to take credit for all the wonderful improvements then starting to bear fruit.

This discussion led to the work on improving K-12 education. We discussed first how the mother's educational level was the driving force in how a child does not just in school, but health, success, life. He had seen the same thing during his time in Africa. He then launched in to a discussion about the state's efforts to get adults GEDs, etc to improve that educational level.

He then discussed the efforts presently under way which is primarily pre-school for all that need it and full day kindergarten. Both of these efforts should (he said will) improve our graduation rates. He also discussed the new systems coming on to measure improvement by student, school, and teacher. And he then discussed how this will show if a teacher is effective. And if a teacher is not effective, and he stressed that this measurement is one tool but not the total story, but if a teacher is not getting the job done – then they need to be let go. This is major because measurement is a key step but if schools cannot take corrective action, it doesn't do much good.

So there you go. My big take-aways are that to him the blow-up concerning vetoing the union bills is over. That green energy & education are the two issues (we discussed) that have his passion and major efforts. That he is concentrating on doing what the state needs with an emphasis on jobs today and big picture long-term. And finally, that he's not going to show-boat.

And here's the thing, while he's not perfect, this is someone who is concentrating on governing well as opposed to campaigning well. Quiet competence is always under appreciated.

Possibly the biggest political event since the fall of communism?

It will take a bit of time to tell but I think the revolution in Iran may have tremendous impact on our world.

First, the entire world is watching and supporting an incredibly brave people face down a corrupt & repressive regime. These people are clearly heroes. And they are Muslim, Middle Eastern, and most people assume Arabic. Just as having an African-American in the White House fundamentally changes people's view of African-Americans, this fundamentally changes people's views of Middle-Eastern Muslims. This puts us on the road to being able to establish a strong relationship of equals.

Second, the protesters are not looking to turn Iran into a secular Jeffersonian democracy. But they are looking to turn it into a liberal Muslim state that follows the rule of law. How and to what degree they choose to seperate church & state will be very different from what we did. But keep in mind what we have today is very different from what we first had in the elightenment. The important thing is they are starting down this road. And they have learned that religious leaders, like every other human being, will misuse absolute power.

Third, we now have a swath of countries - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, & Palestine that are learning how to be democracies. 20 years ago there was not even a glimmer of democratic movement in the middle east. And Iran, unlike every other example, is doing this on its own with no support or encouragement from the U.S. Every remaining regime in the middle east has to be scared shitless by this because their people could choose to do the same thing - totally on their own.

Kabuki Theater at the State Capitol

I was invited down to the capitol for Governor Ritter's end of bill signing time (or some title like that) press conference today. I've never been to one of these before so it was interesting to participate. It seems almost like a set piece of theater where everyone knows in advance what questions will be asked and what the Governor will say in response. We didn't learn anything new.

I can see why there is such an urge on the part of reporters to play gotcha – you get 1 question and the politico is ready to deflect any question they don't like and then move to the next person. And so to get something interesting you almost have to ask a variation of the "do you still beat your wife" type of question. With that said, the questions were all good and Ritter did speak to each rather than dancing around them. So because everyone treated this professionally, it provided about as much information as possible.

With that said, I think it's best to think of these things as being like a wedding, you go because you like the person, or you are returning the favor for the times that they did talk to you one on one. And the office of Governor does deserve the attention of the press. But it's not an event that's going to provide much in the way of anything new. With that said…

1. The TV talent was all dressed in suits while everyone else (camera operators, print reporters) were dressed, shall we say, very comfortably.
2. Lynn Bartels is clearly the top dudette of the political press corp. She got the first question and managed 3 in the event (everyone else got 0 or 1). She did it quite well without being too pushy – an impressive balancing act.
3. We start with Ritter walking in (they don't stand up for him) and he says hi and then makes a short speech listing out what was accomplished over the legislative session. One thing I find interesting about Ritter, he lists out what he has accomplished in a matter of fact way so that you get the meat – but it's not terribly exciting the way he presents it. That hurts him politically.
4. There were a number of questions about the fireman's bill veto, that the firemen were upset with him, etc. He spoke directly to that laying out his reasons, first that this was about pay because it impacted just 11 fire districts, and second that he did not think the state should be telling those districts how to handle their contract negotiations – especially as some had voted down collective bargaining. He also talked about how his job requires telling supporters no sometimes and he believes that this will not impact his relations with the unions.
   My personal opinion is that this bill was one where the legislature passed it to make one of their interest groups happy and the Governor is then supposed to play the designated grown up. The true problem here is that this occurred on top of the lockout bill veto and as the second veto of the two, it's the one that has everyone's focus.
5. My favorite answer of his was when someone asked him to speak to the fact that there had been some tax exemptions removed, some new ones had also been added. And Ritter's response to that was – yeah, they do that every year. Direct, to the point, no bullshit answer. Same thing when someone asked him to respond to Wadhams saying he was doing a lousy job and he basically said that yeah, Wadhams will say that about anything he does.
6. Some discussion about addressing the mess in the constitution. I didn't catch why but apparently the next big thing is the ballot in '11 (why not '10 no one said). And the Gov did say that what can be done in legislation has been done and it will now take revising the constitution. He also spoke to the defeat of 59 and said that to be successful it will require a significant education effort.
7. Toward the end, as the lockout veto had only been mentioned in passing I asked about that. (I have no idea if he knew who I was when he pointed at me.) I asked him why the process around this was such a mess when it was an all Democratic capitol. And I then pointed out that when this bill arrived on his desk either signing or vetoing it impacted the negotiations so vetoing did have an impact. He did not look happy at how I phrased the second part of the question.
   Ok, so on part one he stated that one of his aides told Duran and his daughter (UFCW-7 is apparently changing it's name to Duran & Children) that it would be vetoed. And that another aide told the main legislators that it would be vetoed. He did not claim that he himself had said so, but he did state point blank that his aides had stated this. This was unequivocal – but we don't know what was actually said or how clear it was.
   On part two his argument is that contracts coming due now had their negotiations start back in the end of '08 when this legislation had not been introduced yet. And with a veto he kept things as they were when it started so it did not change the situation. So he owned up to the fact that a veto was impacting the negotiations – and he went for not changing the advantage of either side.
   In a one on one interview I would have followed up by asking if he thinks the present approach is fair. And if it's unfair, then is keeping the power balance in negotiations more important than righting bad law. But the venue does not allow for follow-up.
   What's a bit screwy in all this he said/she said and reasoning is that Ritter alluded that if the start date had been further out he would have been open to it. Yet that would have been an easy thing to accomplish in negotiations, especially for a Governor bragging about how he got the health insurers to move from opposed to neutral on the bill for autistic medical care. And he also talked about how if next year there were fewer contracts up – there are always hundreds of contracts expiring. The bottom line on this is everyone is spinning and we're left with a really unfair law.
8. So a couple more questions and then after answering one the Gov said thank you and turned and left. Lynn Bartels shouted a question to him as he left (channeling her inner Sam Donaldson) and he turned and smiled at her but did not break stride.

So that was it. And I don't think there was a single question about Ritter's successes. Even more than transportation, healthcare, etc is the fact that we are in a world of economic hurt and our state budget is getting everything covered and things are running well. Quiet competence is way underappreciated, but it is an impressive achievement in this climate.

I talked to Lynn Bartels afterwards when she asked me if I was media - I said I wasn't sure as I'm a blogger. She said she does read ColoradoPols and from a couple of comments it is clear she does. So Lynn – hi.

They also tried to get me a short one on one interview with the Governor either before and after but time did not allow – they are now shooting for next week. So all the suggested questions posted on Pols, I'm hanging on to the ones I think are the best for when that happens. I think the Governor realizes that the blogosphere is a key venue for an elected official now – although I will know better after asking him about this. Personally I think a candidate who is being hammered on the web, if they don't get their side presented, can be toast before the campaigning even starts (exhibit 1 is Bob Schaffer).

How Colorado can support small businesses

The Colorado state government helps certain classes of business. Large businesses, and businesses who have enough financial interests in front of the state. Both have lobbyists, consultants, etc. who work effectively to get their needs in front of our state's leaders. Sometimes they get their way. Sometimes they don't. But they get support.

And then you have businesses that the state chooses to pay attention to. In the case of the Ritter administration this falls into two groups, green energy businesses both in the state and ones they try to bring here. And targeted industries where they try to get companies to open facilities in Colorado (but ignore ones already in Colorado).

So who is missed in this? The vast majority of businesses in the state – small and medium businesses (aside from those industries who sell primarily to the state). Ok, so the state favors a few and ignores the rest – but we live in a free enterprise system. So shouldn't we just figure that's the way it is supposed to be (aside from those that Ritter chooses to elevate)?

Well, yes and no. Because it is in the state's interest to look at local businesses for two very important reasons. Reasons of self-interest. Reasons that will benefit the state and its residents.

First let's look at two companies that sell absolutely identical products, provide identical service, at the same price. So it makes no difference to the state, absolutely no difference, which it buys from. But if the state buys from a local company and because of those purchases has to hire 2 more people, then 2 people go off of unemployment and instead become taxpayers. Those two people move from the debit to the credit side of the state's ledger.

On the flip side, if the state buys from an out of state company, those two people remain on unemployment. So all things being equal, there is value to the state in purchasing locally.

Second let's look at two companies where one is a large multinational (i.e. out of state) and the other is a small (usually local) company. And the small company has a better product. The state is better off if it uses the better product. But the large company has a lock on the state where the state is not interested in looking at alternatives.

So the state spends more money than necessary, money that could otherwise go to underfunded parts of the state budget. And at the same time the state ends up with more unemployed and fewer taxpayers.

I am not proposing a repeat of the ultra-dumb Always Buy Colorado. The point is not to force purchases from local companies because that can saddle the state with inferior products.

Instead what I propose is to create an SBA for the state – a small group focused on making state agencies take a real look at local alternatives for products & services they buy. That's it – just make them fairly evaluate local companies as alternatives. The return to the state in reduced unemployment, increased tax revenue, and improved efficiencies should more than pay for this effort.

And to those that say, well of course the state does this – no it doesn't. To use a personal example, for two years we have attempted to get the OIT to take a look at our product. Not to buy it – just to look at it. We've got the state complaining that it can't create the reports required by the stimulus package – and we still can't get the state to even look at our system (which can do this better than what they have in place).

Even if Governor Ritter is not interested in supporting local businesses (unless they are very large or green), he should at least be interested in improving the efficiency of the state. One would think. Or if he doesn't care about improving the state's efficiency – at least pretend you're interested. Fake it so you build up some support in the business community and among the jobless.

And yes this diary means the state will never seriously look at my company. If in return this can get the state to look at other local businesses for the first time – that's worth it. Because Governor Ritter, your blowing off local businesses costs this state jobs and costs this state money. And in the present economic climate those costs are severe.

It's time this state gave our small & medium businesses equitable treatment.

Should Chris King be fired?

I figured lets see what the blogosphere thinks.

Online Surveys & Market Research

The Performance Difference between the Public & Private Sector

Please go to my Windward Studios blog.

Isn't the web supposed to be more efficient?

It took me 45 minutes to make a reservation for 2 tickets & hotel to D.C. 45 minutes!

1. Expedia apparently has technical issues. Which I discovered after creating the entire reservation and tried to complete it. Tried 3 times in case it was a temporary problem.
2. So I called Expedia where the person told me yes, they are "having problems." Tried to make reservations with her, but it was impossible to get locations of hotels from here - especially how close they are to Metro stops. So gave up...
3. So then went to Travelocity and after working my way through and selecting a hotel I find out... that they don't list Frontier flights. So all flights they list are with stop-overs and are 6+ hours from start to finish.
4. But I can get a hotel from them - except the hotel prices all change when not with a flight. So had to work through that again.
5. Then I go to the Frontier Airlines website, get part way through, and it then tells me I must enter the age of each passenger - but provides no place to do that.
6. So I call Frontier where the person on the phone said that yes, they have had this error for months. And I then made the reservation over the phone.

Which leads to two questions:

1. Why do Expedia & Frontier bother to have a website?
2. Why does Travelocity not sell the one airline with direct flights from Denver to Washington National (Reagan) Airport?

Guys, being on the we doesn't mean squat. You have to make effective use of it.

BVSD - continuing to screw the students

from the Boulder Daily Camera

Saturday night at Fairview High School, an era will end.

More than 400 former students are expected to turn out to sing in a farewell concert for retiring Fairview choir teachers Ron Revier and Jim Keller.

These guys are phenominal teachers who have inspired a lot of students. And of course, the BVSD administration can't have that...

Keller, Revier and Fairview's long-time jazz band instructor Steve Christopher are among about 100 technically retired Boulder Valley teachers who have continued working on a part-time basis but will be forced to leave after this year.

"On the first day of school, the district said, 'If you're retired and working part-time, this is your last year,' " Keller said.

But hey, it's not like forcing out quality teachers matters...

Bell, who graduated from Fairview in 1984, said Keller and Revier literally changed her life. She said she came to the school as part of a bad crowd and found a strong community that inspired her life profession. She went on to the conservatory of music at the University of Missouri and now is a professional singer.

Bennet & Udall do good, the Senate not so much...

from the N.Y. Times

Despite complaints that banks and credit card companies are gouging customers by charging outrageous interest rates, the Senate on Wednesday easily turned back an effort to cap interest rates at 15 percent.

The effort by Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, drew only 33 votes and needed 60, with a bipartisan group of 60 senators opposing it as the Senate pushed its credit card overhaul toward the finish line.

Bennet & Udall both voted for this. Kudos to them. But a boatload of Senators decided that usury ain't so bad...

But Mr. Sanders said the card companies and banks were engaged in conduct that could get others hauled into court. He said one-third of all credit card holders are paying interest above 20 percent and as high as 41 percent.

"When banks are charging 30 percent interest rates, they are not making credit available," said Mr. Sanders, who noted credit unions are limited to 15 percent. "They are engaged in loan-sharking."

My big worry is not any specific vote as they bring up this legislation. This particular one will hurt many individuals, but is not as bad for the economy as a whole as the killing of the cram-down legislation was. But any one of these can occur in the give and take of legislative vote wrangling. That's life.

What is worrisome is that when we come to the votes, time after time, we're leaving the financial industry to continue as before. We get great speeches about changing how they operate, but where it matters, in the legislation, no change.

And that means we are looking at a much longer time to recover and, when we do, more big crashes.

As Japan demonstrated with their lost decade, the self-interest of the financial institutions actually hurts the economy, including those same financial institutions. But like an alcoholic, they cannot see that they are harming themselves.

And they appear to have bought enough Senators that they can continue their binge...

My breakfast with Greg

I met with Greg Lopez, head of the Colorado Small Business Administration office this morning. Greg is the epitome of what you want in a government employee. He is knowledgeable, persuasive, focused, and incredibly enthusiastic. He also appears to know everyone in the main business community as well as our political leaders – which is key for his job. All in all, a great hire.

The most interesting thing was how the SBA operates. They not only are advocating and helping small businesses, but they themselves run much like a small business. They have a small number of people and a limited budget, yet they have a large number of efforts they must effectively complete. The government appears to be following the Microsoft model here where, when a job absolutely requires 5 people, assign 4 to it. I'm not saying that everyone at the SBA is working at 101%, but I think limited resources is a major constraint on what they can get accomplished.

Ok, so they're like us (small businesses) in many ways. Except… They can't advertise. They cannot spend a single cent telling people that they exist and how they can help them. So here's this great resource for small businesses. We spend all this tax money on it. Small businesses desperately need it. And they can't get the word out! This is nuts.

So back to Greg. Very interesting guy. He has owned companies, sat on numerous boards, was head of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and mayor of Parker. A really varied experience that fits really well with his present job. What was also interesting was he talked very little about his previous experience, definitely not someone who needs to brag.

The main part of his job is getting out and talking to business leaders, political leaders, etc. The topic he kept returning to time after time was getting all of these people to realize how key small business is to the economy and how their efforts to purchase from small businesses assist the economy. And he would drill in on what they need to do to actually insure they are buying from small businesses rather than just going through the motions.

He also discussed how the banks are not loaning to small businesses here. He talks to bank executives who swear that they are loaning – and he brings up the SBA loan numbers to show that no, it's at about ½ where it used to be. And he gets in their face about it. He can only push so much but at least we have someone calling these guys on their B.S. when they claim that they are loaning money.

We discussed the definition of a small business and he said that while a manufacturing company of slightly under 500 employees appears large to a 5 person company, it is still very small compared to the large concerns out there. But he then went on to say that size generally is not an issue at all and they are happy to help any company. And they have very large companies coming to them for help – on how they should implement their small business programs.

I've never been a big proponent of set-asides, even though they would help my business. But he made a compelling case for it. First off, he discussed how small businesses are the engine that drives the economy, they provide half the jobs in this country, and they tend to be better paying jobs. Because of that, it is in our general interest to encourage the success of small businesses as it improves the economy. (He also believes that if small businesses can drive the turn-around, we will get out of this economic mess a lot sooner.)

He then discussed the self-interest of a community to keep its public spending local where possible so the money gets a multiplier effect. When a city builds a new police station, everyone local who is paid for that work then turns around and spends a lot of that money locally, so the tax money that is paying for the building also boosts the economy. All things being equal, I can see the value of that.

He returned time and again to effective measurable efforts to assist small business. He is clearly focused on making a difference. What was interesting is he would like to see the federal government do this better – and state and local governments actually do it. He was very polite and did not bad mouth anyone, but he clearly doesn't see the state or local governments coming even close to the efforts the federal government makes. (And I can attest to that difference from personal experience – it's major.)

He did have nice things to say about Governor Ritter's recent efforts to have them do a small business road trip together where they talked to small businesses and sat down with them one on one to help them with their present efforts. Greg has a superb grasp of what small businesses need to watch, what they need to do, what can get in their way, etc. If he was not in a government position (where he can't do it) I would beg him to sit on the advisory board of my company.

All in all I'd say the SBA is operating well here and is in very competent hands. Yes they'd like more resources so they can accomplish more (wouldn't we all), but they are accomplishing a lot with what they have. And they provide a wealth of key information for small businesses – information that can easily make the difference between success and failure. And the best measure of Greg is at the end of 1 hour I realized I had mostly learned about and been sold on the SBA, not Greg Lopez.

In closing, I asked Greg what was the one piece of advice he would like to give all people starting a small business was. And his reply was that the SBA is here to be your partner on your road to success. Call them.