Jan. 15, 2002

GW’s Chief Lobbyist: Richard Sawaya

ByGeorge!: Describe what you do as vice president for government, international, and corporate affairs.

Richard Sawaya: VP for government, international, and corporate affairs is a newly established senior staff position. It’s really an effort at the University level to connect the dots, so to speak. It includes District of Columbia government relations, managed by Assistant VP Bernard Demczuk, who has been in the position for several years. The George Washington University, first among the other universities in the city, should be viewed as a valuable resource to the District. Among other things, that means GW’s campus-building should be regarded as a benefit, not a liability. As the District engages in its own examination of its future after Sept. 11, it seems to me that the resource value of the University should be, if not center stage, then certainly on the stage. That’s really the mission of the District government relations function.

As for federal government relations: After the horror of Sept. 11, the federal government is going to be engaged for the foreseeable future in appropriating capital investments nationwide in safety, security, and homeland defense. That means public health, city and state emergency planning, transportation security, and safety issues. Consider GW’s assets in this regard: the University Medical Center with biohazard capability, infectious disease, and public health expertise; the School of Engineering and Applied Science with its Transportation Research Institute, its relationship with the National Transportation Safety Board, and its Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management; and the University’s Aviation Institute.

Given these assets, the opportunities for GW to secure earmarked federal funding will involve multi-school cooperation and be focused on the Loudoun, Virginia campus. My role is to coordinate the University’s involvement with the federal government’s appropriations process.
Internationally, the University has not only a substantial international student body, but we also have relationships as an institution with institutions in other countries. We are not opportunity-limited in terms of institutional partnerships. But, how do we conduct due diligence in terms of those opportunities, both externally — what they actually present — and internally in terms of the capabilities we really have to make a partnership for the benefit of both? Such relationships have to be self-financing, should maintain GW’s academic standards, and should enhance our reputation. That’s the mission of the international piece. Robert Kott, after a distinguished career in the Foreign Service, is well equipped for this function as our director of international affairs.
Finally, there’s a corporate dimension. It is the least defined of my charges, but it speaks to my own career history. Generally, it’s to assist the University’s development of corporate partnerships, where my assistance can add value.

ByG!: Can you talk more about some of the things you do in terms of lobbying, reaching out, asking about grants…

RS: Sure. Early this year, President Trachtenberg and I did a series of meetings on Capitol Hill. We met with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who is the new chair of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee on the Senate side. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) chairs the subcommittee on the House side. We visited both of them to talk about the state of the University generally and to make a specific pitch for the Center for Excellence in Municipal Management, which has a wonderful record of training and management development for mid-career professionals in the District of Columbia government. As it turns out, both subcommittees saw fit to add a new appropriation of $250,000 for the center. It’s my responsibility to make these kinds of connections — federal, state, local — fit with GW’s assets.

ByG!: What are the trends for this type of office in higher education and how has it developed over the years?

RS: It’s a growth industry. It falls into two tiers — the top tier represented by the leading research institutions such as MIT, Harvard, Princeton. These universities have an announced policy of not pursuing federal earmarks in Congress. They don’t have to because they receive annual so-called peer-reviewed contracts in the hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s not accidental. The history of success breeds success. The George Washington University is a university that is engaged in a strategic project of improving its academic standing, improving its campus-building and infrastructure; of necessity, that includes pursuing federal earmarks where they make sense. What do I mean by that? One, that we have the human capital inside the institution — and, more and more, that human capital needs to work across departmental and school boundaries. Two, that there is some relationship with the agency in the federal government that will be the sponsor of the research and the project. Given these conditions, we have honest grounds to go to a member of Congress. Obviously the Loudoun campus gives us standing with the Virginia delegation. That’s how this office is engaged in the trends you’re talking about.

ByG!: Can you talk more about GW and its relationship with the District?

RS: Tip O’Neill famously said “all politics is local.” The District is certainly no exception. On so many fronts, we have an excellent relationship. We are a good citizen of the District. We are the largest private employer in the District. Contrary to popular lore — i.e., you’re a university and don’t pay any taxes — we are a university and we do pay taxes in terms of the commercial properties that we either rent or rent out. Another example is after Sept. 11. The bottom fell out of tourism in the District, which is the first source of economic activity. The George Washington University held Family Weekend. More than 4,200 people showed up for the weekend to enjoy the District of Columbia, not just The George Washington University. Our campus-building should not be regulated as a zero sum game. We have to keep working at the community level.

ByG!: Describe your professional career.

RS: Decades ago, I took a PhD in English literature at Harvard. I taught for several years after that at Loyola-Marymount University and ran the university honors program. Then I left the academy, and I joined the Atlantic Richfield Company in the late 1970s. I had a wonderful introduction to corporate life in the ARCO headquarters in Los Angeles. I came to Washington in 1985 as part of the Washington ARCO office to work financial issues. Then, in the early 1990s, I shifted over to international new business development. To have had academic experience, to have had corporate experience, and to have had political experience at the federal level in Washington; then to come into this position where all of those roles are called upon and indeed to get involved in the District politics is like taking a drink from a fire hose, but I really do enjoy it. It’s a good challenge, a good drink.

ByG!: Do you consider yourself a lobbyist for GW?

RS: Yes. It’s a form of diplomacy, of marshaling connections to the advantage of both parties.

ByG!: You talked about your academic background. Do you plan to go back to the classroom and teach at GW?

RS: Yes, when President Trachtenberg and I discussed the position, he said, “You do have a PhD. I would like you to be a professorial lecturer.” I said I would be delighted. So next fall, I will give a course in the Honors Program. The working title is, “Tools of the Trade: Uses of a Liberal Education in Corporate Life.” I really want the course to be about the kinds of things a liberally educated person can contribute to corporate decision making.

 

Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu