Word comes from Olympia that the State of Washington won the American Council of Technology’s 2010 Intergovernmental Solutions Award.

Beyond awesome.

For all of my serious and flippant remarks about the $2 billion we spend on technology per biennium, and the unfortunate disaster known as the Washington State Wheeler Data Center, we do have a wide range of genuinely awesome application efforts underway throughout state government.

Allyson Brooks Ph.D., Director/State Historic Preservation Officer, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, reports the following:

“We won for our agency’s WISAARD website that shares historic site data, archaeological information and contains a statewide archaeological predictive model. The public can only access the historic sites portion of our WEB site but government agencies, tribes and consulting archaeologists can access all the archaeological data through Secure Access Washington once they receive a password from our agency. This is because archaeological data is exempt from public disclosure due to looting.”

I’ve always been fascinated by historic preservation issues and challenges, and this sort of compelling information can change the way we learn about our past and future.

What’s so cool about this award?

It’s not about the type of ‘back end’ commodity services I often use as examples of wasteful spending, it’s about a front-end application that real people living real lives can use.

We need to make public information accessible and that means having the willingness to open previously hidden data. This is a fantastic example of how data can help improve decision-making, policy, finances and our politics.

Well done, Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation!

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

Thomas Paine articulated a vision for change

It’s been a bedrock of this blog to avoid any direct political references associated with campaigns. I take it very seriously and have not breached that obligation in any fashion in order to: a) build credibility with my readers and b) ensure that a direct link allowed by the House administration to my blog from my official legislative website, a nearly useless site by any stretch, is protected.

Yet I do have some thoughts about 2012 that are relevant to many of the larger challenges we face today.

For all practical purposes the 2012 governor’s race in Washington is in full force. Attorney General Rob McKenna has been slowly, methodically and structurally organizing his race for governor for years. And it appears that he’s in full force. Rep. Jay Inslee has been doing the same from his vantage point in Washington, D.C. Other names include Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, state Sen. Lisa Brown and others since Gov. Chris Gregoire is clearly not running for a third term.

The list of names is filled with extremely bright, energetic, passionate and insightful advocates for their causes. I honor their years of public service and their many accomplishments.

For me, the teachable moment–and the interesting systemic issue– at this early stage in a wide open, hotly contested race that will cost tens of millions of dollars is how little experience McKenna, Inslee, Reardon and Brown have outside of government. Despite anxiety about the scale and scope of government on the right, and the hunger for progressive change on the left, it is fascinating to see how narrowly we are looking for leadership. Where are the names of business leaders, academics, entrepreneurs and others?

I realize, of course, that governing is complex and clunky. I realize it is not easy to understand the inner workings of how legislation moves through the process. I realize that having a deep domain of knowledge about various public policies is vital to effective governing. We all know that success in business does not lead to success in government or the other way around.

But in a romantic way I also treasure the notion of real people living real lives bringing a fresh, enthusiastic, energetic perspective to governing. It is the very ideal of Thomas Jefferson’s vision not from a jaded perspective but from a heart-felt, sincere and moving point of view.

I have blogged before about the power of the institutional bureaucracy, the outright hostility that the infrastructure of government feels when pushed to change, and yet we have no choice but to courageously tackle tough issues anew. We need governors who have lived lives outside of government in order to maintain just enough passion for action to push for change but not so self righteously that they are completely marginalized by ineffectiveness.

There is no one strategy or tactic that is assured to bring effective leadership to the state level, and the proverbial ‘leadership’ versus ‘management’ model is just a simplistic notion of how change happens. Gov. Dan Evans, arguably the most influential and effective governor in state history, brought about change in many core systems because we was boldly direct with the public and they responded to that conviction. Other governors have been extremely effective in some areas, less so in others.

On some level, for me personally Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 seemed to be missing a subtle empathy gene for how business works. I don’t say that from a right wing, anti-government perspective but from a look-at-the-ceiling-at-3 a.m.-perspective. I don’t say it critically or in a way that disrespects their accomplishments at the time, only that somehow you could feel that they didn’t have a breadth of experience outside of government in a way that they could relate to real people living real lives. And, of course, I do not pretend that those with a lifetime of government experience are somehow disinclined to advocate for change and reform. But I do think they have a level of acceptance and a patience that those of us from outside of government refuse to accept. Perhaps we will become disillusioned more quickly or will fail to achieve our agendas of reform, but when government is only one chapter in your life that is not necessarily failure. Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, as the romantics among us say.

In this case, when our state cries out for serious and structural reform in so many areas, patience is not necessarily a virtue. We need more elected officials with an impatience for progress on the tough issues of our time.

Thomas Paine was an effective leader for change not simply because he questioned old assumptions but because he had the courageous honesty to articulate a bold vision for a new nation.

We need the folks measuring the governor’s chair in 2012 to articulate a genuine vision, policy foundation and agenda for why they want the job that goes beyond the proverbial ‘it’s my turn’ rationalization, excuse and explanation.

We live in historic times that call for bold leadership formed from a rich tapestry of public and private sector experience. As we face ongoing deficits into 2012 and a roaring need for government and systems reforms, we must demand that those lining up for the job stand for something greater than themselves.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

With new King County Executive Dow Constantine and new Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, and deficits pounding the public sector at the local, county and state levels, I believe it’s time for a comprehensive systems approach to look at how we deliver public services.

Central questions: If we were designing government from scratch today, what would it look like? What level of government should provide what type and level of service? How can we unleash the entrepreneurial energy of our public employees and private sector partners to improve the efficiency of service delivery? How can we utilize technology together in a new, open, transparent model so the public knows where to go for services?

Most importantly, how can we put the public at the center of our model?

King County delivers public safety, land use, water treatment, Metro and other services. Seattle delivers hands-on services such as utilities, streets, human services and more. The state hovers above and sometimes delivers services directly such as foster youth, nursing home payments, education funding and sometimes provides a more functional coordinating role as in public health.

And yet all three levels of government are struggling financially and operationally to keep up with demand as the Great Recession pounds on.

In terms of dollars, the state provides taxing authority to local governments. It’s one of the most important constitutional authorities we have in Olympia. Yet who should have what type of taxing and spending authority? Does our model work today? Are we providing too much authority around taxes to Olympia and too little at the local level? Or is a regional model as in Sound Transit a more appropriate path in today’s regional world? How much is enough and for whom?

And other regional questions need attention: Transportation, the future of Seattle Center and more. There are regional plans for Puget Sound cleanup, Sound Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council and more. Are they working?

In order for our state to seize the opportunity of this crisis, and to embrace systems change, we need a more coordinated regional plan of action.

We should put all of our taxes and services on the table and look at them in a coordinated, comprehensive and objective fashion.

Let’s have a regional summit and put it all on the table for an open, coordinated, regionally-driven dialogue about how we collect money, how we spend it, and how we can work together more effectively.

Let’s seize the opportunity of this crisis to do more than rearrange programs, let’s tackle core systems issues that go to the heart of what we want our regional to look like in the 21st Century.

Government 2.0 is not just about the idea of opening old databases and accessing information. It’s about a new look and a new outlook.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

A handful of bills moving through the Legislature this year touch on governmental restructuring ideas. Breaking up the massive Department of Social and Health Services is one, consolidating the many related departments of natural resources is another, coordinating our use of technology, outsourcing liquor stores, and more.

Whether they have merit individually or not it’s hard to see all of them, including my own, House Bill 3178, as more than a modest step forward and an uncomfortable dance around the edges of change. Still, few should expect much heavy new policy shifting during a short legislative session when the challenges are so great.

As I have maintained from the outset, the larger systems challenge is to look hard at the fundamental questions facing government across our state: What level of government should be providing what type of service? If we were designing and building a government from scratch, what would it look like?

Can we accept a model where the paramount duty of the state is to fund, support and organize public education? The implications would be profoundly important to our needs for other services. The questions and answers would roar through our political dialogue in every community. Rural areas would be especially impacted since the risk is very real that they would see a substantial reduction in government services from state government. Many from rural areas often seek to reduce the size of state government, but I think when the question surfaces in a specific or tangible way their voices may not be so loud.

And yet we do need to ask, do local communities want anything from Olympia other than money when it comes to schools or is ‘local control’ a mantra that we can’t see beyond?

Should counties be a stronger lead on public health with more coordination from Olympia but a less hands-on operational role from the state?

Should multi county regions have more taxing authority for transit solutions?

Should the state get out of some lines of business and, if so, will we provide the support for local governments to do it more effectively and efficiently?

Would local governments use money from levies for schools for other vital human services (assuming the state increased its funding for the paramount duty of education) or would we see a tiered, inequitable system across our state in health care, housing, economic development, environmental services and more?

The issues aren’t just about the state’s projected $2.8 billion deficit, they are structural and integral to our future for years to come. There was a time in the 1980s and 1990s when state governments were the laboratories for innovation and entrepreneurial ideas. I don’t see that happening as much today as state’s struggle to maintain basic functions. But we need to reclaim that title and sense of courage about big innovation.

It is not too late, on a larger level, to seize the opportunity of this crisis.

Many spent this past week railing against a change in I-960. They say their strategy is to reduce the size, scope and role of state government. Yet their lack of any meaningful proposals, suggestions or contributions on a policy level suggests otherwise. Their lack of actual policies, proposals, ideas or suggestions about genuine, meaningful government systems reform is a deafening silence. It is not as easy as making a speech.

We should begin a structured one or two year initiative to ask these larger structural and systematic questions. We should organize community meetings across our state for a bold dialogue about how to build a 21st Century government in Washington.

The next governor will have no option to avoid facing this fundamental issue head on. It makes me wish the top two prospects on both sides of the political aisle had a broader, more diverse background of experience between both the pubic and private sectors. Their careers have been defined by government. That either opens the door to a “Nixon goes to China” opportunity or it sets the stage for the status quo. The history of our state is to elect governors and even legislators who most frequently come from careers in government.

We need to embrace Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of a healthy, frequent, interactive relationship between the public and private sectors. We have a citizen legislature for a reason but as the economy struggles the institutional infrastructure of the status quo freezes our willingness to be bold. And yet, of course, it is from crisis comes opportunity.

Today the private sector is, as a general rule, asking and addressing these very tough questions because there is no other choice. Markets are shifting, economies are changing, customers are making different choices. That doesn’t mean the private sector is doing it perfectly or safely or well, but it has embarked on the difficult journey. The challenges are structural, systematic and historic. Families and businesses don’t have an option but to adapt and change.

Neither does government. We can embark on this journey with more courageous honesty if we choose.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Thomas Jefferson

In the Legislature there is clear accountability and authority around spending and revenues.

Still, one of the practical problems during these challenging times is that the traditional legislative structure and process of analyzing bold government reform may not be sufficient.

We are, quite simply, nervous about tackling really big structural problems because the scope of the challenge is greater than any of us.

And that’s the point.

We are very good at managing the tactical and operational challenges of a particular one or two year budget. Where we often struggle is how best to explore large-scale structural and systems issues.

At McCaw Cellular Communication I was impressed with a total quality management practice of creating special swat teams across disciplines to tackle large-scale, systems issues. We mixed front line workers through senior executives across various functional areas into a single team with accountability and authority to address a major structural challenge—and to come up with answers. Examples included core business functions such as reducing churn among our cellular customers, radically increasing revenue from data services, expanding distribution partnerships across new markets and more.

Perhaps we should consider creating and empowering a special swat team of legislators and others charged with specifically exploring large-scale government reform.

Everyone knows that government studies, commissions and task forces often end up on the dusty shelf. Yet during these challenging times, as we prepare for a tough 2011-2013 budget cycle, I believe we should create a major task force—the Government Transformation Initiative—charged with asking the extremely tough political, policy and financial questions based upon these core long-term ideas and many more.

Thomas Jefferson encourages us to have courage. In our corner of our country today, that means asking big questions.

“If we were designing government in Washington State from scratch today, what would it look like?”

“What level of government should provide what level of service?”

“What does state government do well and what does it do poorly?”

“How can we get more transparency into how money flows in our state between cities, counties and the state?”

“What is the reality of our tax obligation in Washington and does it meet our needs?”

“What do the people of our state want and need from government?”

“Why does our state government fail to embrace the reality that education is our paramount duty?”

Tackling systems questions is rarely rewarded politically, and few find it intellectually interesting. But long term planning and strategic analysis of our systems challenges is essential to a living, breathing and vibrant organization.

We need to ask big, uncomfortable, serious and thoughtful questions about what government should look like in the new century. We need a team-based process—that reaches out to the 6.7 million people of our state—to embark on this journey. It is bigger than any one candidate or campaign or special interest or even era. It is about the people and our ability to meet their needs. It is about community organizing around a bold notion that we can create the type of government that we want. We are not tied to old models, systems and structures if we don’t want to be.

Our state government is 120 years old and it is, of course, a monopoly. The challenge of our time is to act with courageous honesty, bold conviction and a youthful eye toward our new century.

We need government reform that reconnects people with their own needs, services, taxes and benefits. The question today is not bigger government or smaller government but better government.

A Government Transformation Task Force should not be about politics, parties, interest groups or ideological turf. It should be about freshness, energy, reflection and courageous honesty. Imagine if we assembled the best of the best—public, private, progressive, conservative and more—to tackle bold systems challenges.

Would the work product sit on the dusty shelf? Perhaps. But only if it became an insiders game of control of message and content. If we reached out, engaged with the people of our state and embraced the larger systems challenge with courage and dignity and purpose, it would bring deep and genuine value. And perhaps some new ideas.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

The terrible earthquake in Haiti now looks to have claimed more than 50,000 lives.

Emergency response services and systems are the first obligation of government.

As an entrepreneur I’ve helped build companies that have provided advanced technology to the public sector in the areas of wireless E911 services, interoperability, firefighter training and more. It’s always been a personal and professional passion of mine.

Many of you know that I have at times thrown a few gentle elbows at government for the lack of passionate engagement in quality of service coupled with cost efficiency. In the area of public safety, following the lessons of Katrina and other tragedies, it is a reminder that government needs to do more than set up equipment and infrastructure–it needs to design people-centric business processes to allow quality services to be delivered.

Does anyone believe that quality building standards are a burden? I hope not.

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and the people must feel a sense of anxiety about whether they are being targeted in some awful twist of fate.

This is a time, and a vicious reminder, that we need to ensure that our own emergency response services and systems are well designed. Given my own background in this category, I am sorry to say that if we experienced a massive 7.0 earthquake in Seattle we would in very, very bad shape and many of our state’s systems would not work well.

This is a reminder that we have the opportunity to plan in a much more thoughtful and systematic fashion. Now more than ever.

Please consider making a contribution to help the people of Haiti during this extraordinary time.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

The old Queen Anne High School building, sitting magestically atop Seattle, is a stark reminder of the lack of long-term strategic thinking from the public sector. The building was sold for a song to developers in the early 1980s after the student population fell dramatically, a result of ‘White flight’ and overall declining enrollments–and the school district was looking for a quick buck. Today, the seams are bursting on Queen Anne and Magnolia and the neighborhoods lament the loss of a high school.

In the coming weeks the Seattle City Council and the Seattle Public School Board will vote on another deal. The school district owns much of the rights to highly valuable property–Memorial Stadium–part of the heart of Seattle Center and the soul of our city.

The nine acres of real estate in Seattle Center is extremely valuable by any measure. “The parties have agreed on a combined value of $45 million for the Stadium Lots and the Parking Lot,” according to the Memorandum of Understanding. Yet, from my buddy and Queen Anne parent Kelly Charlton’s research, it looks like the combined value of the parcels in the King County Records is $76,226,000. That’s a 41% difference.

Are you kidding me?

The School District is giving up a world class, high quality, amazingly valuable property in exchange for a reduced price and a modest income stream. That’s a bad deal in my view even during rough economic times and I hope they reconsider. I am a huge booster of the Seattle Center, and I want the facility to be built in the best interests of the public for generations to come. But school kids shouldn’t lose out in the process. Can’t school kids get a little something?

Queen Anne and Magnolia need a high school and a rejuvenated middle school. The leverage from a pure business deal perspective resides with the school district, not the city. This is our chance to capture value from real discussions with the city to strike a better deal.

When the school district and, unfortunately, much of the public sector “negotiates” deals over assets, the public often gets the short end of the talks. One suggestion that has surfaced is the idea of the city providing support for a comprehensive high school, rebuilt McClure Middle School building, and Queen Anne community center facility. Or even programmatic support from the city in exchange for the Memorial Stadium, in addition to capital facilities.

I hope the school district will throw some elbows (in a good way) and renegotiate this deal which to me, as an outsider, seems like another Queen Anne High School-like give away that will be regretted for decades.

I often prod the public sector for its failure to have an entrepreneurial spirit and an innovator’s passion. School district: You have an amazing asset. Don’t give it up without striking a smokin’ hot deal for the future of the district.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

Democracy means electing people to think

It’s counterintuitive. What could be more democratic than asking people to vote directly on public policy issues?

A great deal.

It is time to put on the table the idea that asking the voters to decide tough, complex or technical issues–economic, social, political–has a cost to our society and our democracy. It’s easy, of course, for elected officials to retreat to “let’s put this on the ballot” anytime an issue gets too hot. It’s easy to make the case that we need the public’s perspective and insight. That’s legitimate and I agree. But there is a major difference between getting the public’s participation and understanding where people stand, and using the ballot as a short-term tactic to get your way. When you are losing, you can always cry foul–”the people haven’t spoken, this is unjust!”

The proposal from Mike McGinn to put the tunnel project to the voters of Seattle is both inappropriate and unwise. This is a state highway and the state–in partnership with the elected leadership and stakeholders of the local community–has made a decision after eight years of process. If you want to overturn that decision, overturn the people who made it and get new folks in office.

Tim Eyman has built a well of informal influence by advocating for his issues directly to the people. People cry foul over his initiatives but he is simply using the system that exists to advocate for his causes. I respect that approach and find the whining about his success to be tiring. Get to work and organize if you don’t like his proposals. The voters and Legislature have created super majority requirements for tax votes, used the initiative process endlessly and created a model–far short of California’s but far enough–where it’s becoming unstable in our governance.

We live in a representative Democracy. The values and ideal of Thomas Jefferson and our founders are more than quant notions of yesterday. It is hypocritical to believe in Democracy but to have so much contempt for those you elect that you take away the authority to govern. Yes we want people to vote directly on important issues–when it makes sense and contributes to a more thoughtful approach to challenging issues. But not on every issue that is remotely controversial or requires government to make a decision. We’ve become virtually spineless in our fear of making decisions.

Someone, one day, G-d forbid, is going to die on the Alaskan Way Viaduct and we will face multi billion lawsuits to say nothing of lost lives. This is serious and it’s a crisis. The effort to delay for many years is disingenuous.

We are moving in a direction where we could put a computer in every home and have every person vote directly on every bill in the Legislature, and eliminate the need for elected representatives altogether. The question to ask is this: Do we elect people to only mirror their constituents’ immediate, exact, short-term feelings on every single issue or do we elect people to THINK long-term, use critical decision making and judgement? And then face the voters in their own judgement? Many believe the former. I believe the latter. We are a representative Democracy because it works and it is the DNA of our history.

Those of us in public office have a moral obligation to study, learn, assess and connect with voters–and to stay in touch with their values and priorities. And then make a decision. Our job is not to test the wind and vote with the 50.1% majority on every single issue regardless of the implications.

We are going down the path of California and we will one day soon find ourselves paralyzed with the inability to govern and to run our own state.

The next time a candidate calls for a vote of the people have the courage to ask the real question: Is this a short term tactic to get your way politically or is it a reflection of genuine Democracy?

Electronic Medical Records: Who owns the work?

There is hardly anyone who is opposed to moving toward a digital strategy for medical records. It would allow for robust applications and services so we could understand the impact of multiple prescriptions, avoid adverse drug interactions, assess long-term therapies, reduce costs and headaches of entering new data every time you go to the doctor, and much, much more. It would like together providers in a way that allows them to actually communicate about a patient’s best interests instead of remaining isolated in the closed silos.

Despite legitimate concerns about privacy and security (which I do believe can be addressed with strong business processes, governance reform and good technology), there are only the questions of why it’s taking so long and who is in charge? Today’s New York Times takes a shot at it, and offers a compelling story about the $19 billion in federal dollars for a movement toward electronic medical records.

The real answer is that the institutional infrastructure of both government and private providers have little real incentive to aggressively move to an e-records system. The vendors sell expensive, proprietary hardware-centric systems that reinforce the silos of data and prevent easy access from competitors; doctors are generally technology-adverse; government doesn’t seem to realize it is often paying the bill and should care more and push harder. So the studies pile up, the reports come out, and the efforts to move toward a next generation system continue to plod along.

Local and state governments are being ruthlessly and viciously crushed by the cost of health care. It is destroying our way of life and sucking the resources away from education, affordable housing, environmental cleanup and more. One viable strategy to reduce costs is to implement comprehensive EMR (electronic medical records). But it takes leadership and bold commitment to push, prod and move the institution of government forward.

Obama deserves credit for raising the issue frequently although I don’t have enough information to know if they are making any real progress. It’s a top priority in the other Washington. The efforts in Washington State seem modest at best and seem paralyzed with talk or at best lack of communications. Or, perhaps, there is a bold effort underway and Washington is applying for a large piece of the $19 billion federal money. It’s possible and, as always, I love finding out that more is happening that meets the eye. As a member of the Energy, Technology & Communications Committee, I haven’t heard anything about it. I hope against hope there is a big push underway.

I don’t blame anyone in particular for my own lack of deep domain expertise and knowledge in this area….and naturally don’t assume I have a handle on everything we’re doing in Washington about federal competitive dollars in every area. I certainly don’t. But in a strange way that’s actually part of the point. Why don’t we have more communication about what the plan is, who owns it, when it’s due, how much we’re going for and what our success rate is for competitive grant dollars? Our strategy around federal competitive dollars–in virtually every area–is a black hole. We have little visibility into how we’re doing as a state from an objective point of view.

We have an image of ourselves as entrepreneurial, innovative and creative in the use of technology in government. That image is more a stereotype and cliche than reality. The imagine comes because we’re the home of Microsoft, Amazon, Real Networks and much more than it does because of local, county or state government’s next generation use of technology.

There’s $19 billion in federal money available for electronic medical records conversion strategies, tactics and programs alone. One, two or three years from now, I wonder whether we’ll look back on this and think, again, we missed the opportunity of this crisis. Again.

It is well known within many political and constitutional circles that the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution has a long, challenging history with little accepted ‘resolution’ as to the full implications.

The amendment itself reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Many on the right are deeply, passionately and consistently concerned that this Amendment has lost its power by a raging modern federalist power play and approach to state and federal relations. Up to the civil rights era, of course, states rights was particularly accepted as a central philosophical core of our nation’s history. Many on the left see this issue as a strategy of the right to assume more control for policies and programs–anti civil rights, anti choice, etc.– than a philosophical concept.

The danger of this position is that we place ourselves at the mercy of the federal government’s authority whether we like the current government or not. That seems fine when we’re on board with what’s going on in D.C., not so fine when we’re opposed. So the underlying foundation of the role of the states become more important to address when we are on board with the D.C. direction. Why? Because we can engage in a meaningful dialogue about the roles without feeling the pressure to push policy A or policy B. We can approach this as the constitutional question that it is.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty recently raised this issue in the context of his opposition to the Obama Administration’s health care reform efforts. While I strongly disagree with the Governor’s policy, I do feel he has a legitimate issue (from his perspective) in raising this central constitutional question from a philosophical perspective.

Here’s the full interview and context from the Washington Independent:

“On a Thursday night Republican Governors Association conference call with conservative activists, moderated by Erick Erickson of RedState, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) broached the possibility of “asserting the 10th Amendment” to keep Minnesota from fully participating in a health care plan passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. The 10th Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The question from the caller: “I want to know if any of the governors are willing to invoke the 10th Amendment if the health care bill is passed.” Pawlenty’s answer:

Thank you for the question. It’s a great question. I don’t think the nation’s had a proper federalism debate since Ronald Reagan raised the issue regularly in the 1980s. And by federalism of course we mean the proper relationship between the federal government and the states, trained as a cornerstone around the 10th Amendment. I believe that amendment has been discounted to the point of making me very sad.

Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment might be viable option, but we don’t know the details. As one of the other callers said, we can’t really even get the president to outline what he does or doesn’t support in any detail. So we’ll have to see. I’d say that’s a possibility.

You’re starting to see more governors, including me, and specifically Gov. Perry from Texas, and most Republican governors express concern around these issues and get more aggressive about asserting and bringing up the 10th Amendment. So I think we could see hopefully a resurgence of those claims and maybe even lawsuits if need be.”

(End of Governor’s remarks and interview)

I am profoundly troubled by this issue because I feel–from a policy, philosophy and constitutional perspective –that our friends on the right are in many ways essentially correct on this issue despite being misguided on the specific policies themselves. It’s sort of an ACLU argument–I don’t like what you’re saying but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

The balance has shifted away from the states to the federal government to a point where we rarely engage in the depth of dialogue about the right roles and responsibilities. The Governor’s comment is accurate that we haven’t had a “proper federalism debate since Ronald Reagan raised the issue regularly in the 1980s.”

I want to stress that while I do not agree with the right’s approach, policies objectives in this sense, I do feel we as a state and nation would benefit from elevating the level of dialogue about the roles and responsibilities of the state and federal government not just in a historical context, but in a 21st Century vision based upon our constitutional foundation. The 10th Amendment is not a department down the hall nor a quant concept of old. It is, of course, part of the DNA of our nation. We should treat it as such.

Unfortunately, complaints from the right are accurate in that states have been pushed into a corner by accepting a broad increase in federal authority and scope in exchange for federal money. States readily accept the terms and conditions from the federal government and, in fact, there isn’t even so much as a negotiation as there is quiet acceptance and resignation from state capitals. Almost regardless of the policy, the states rarely seem to even push back anymore.

Rep. Matt Shea, R-4th District, introduced a House memorial to take a stand on this issue and essentially invoke the right of the state to reclaim its authority under the Constitution. While I’m not ready to storm the Bastille with the Republicans on this, I do think the constitutional question itself is legitimate and very compelling.

And worth a modern, meaningful and genuine dialogue.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.