My time with the Rose Institute was formative to my time at CMC and has influenced my career in both direct and indirect ways over the years. Most directly, my time at the Rose Institute underscored the importance of hard data in making policy, particularly on issues and subjects thick with emotional or subjective views and opinions. For much of my career, I have been able to apply that lens to difficult and complex issues and provide reasonable recommendations for policy action or demonstrate the true benefits and costs of ongoing efforts. Less directly, but equally as important, has been applying the Rose analytics approach to my understanding of local, state, and national politics—particularly as it relates to redistricting reform. Dr. Heslop and Florence Adams were the team that led the Institute then, and they could not have been more welcoming and wonderful. Being an RA at the Institute was a key reason for my ultimate success at CMC and over my career. I learned a lot, not just about the subjects and issues, but about working as a team and looking for the true story behind the numbers and the opinions. Earning some work-study money along the way was the icing on the cake.

To be honest, I don’t remember if I picked the Rose Institute or Dr. Heslop and Florence picked me. I do remember that being able to focus on local and state issues was an especially unique draw for me. That more local, physical connection between the government and the people just clicked for me. And it was something that I emphasized when I taught the equivalent of Gov 20 at Pepperdine University many years later. I do remember very vividly being in awe of Dr. Heslop (and his accent) and finding in Florence an early mentor. It was just fun to be there!