Vaclav Havel died today at the age of 75.

It’s striking that on the day that both Vaclav Havel and Kim Jung Il died, there are few mentions of Havel relative to the 7×24 cable coverage of the predicted chaos of North Korea.

I have long found Havel to be almost a purified symbol of political courage. He was one of only 242 people to sign the Charter 77, a document that set the foundation for the Velvet Revolution itself and, in turn, the collapse of the Soviet Union. He served five years in prison for that signature.

But it was something besides his moral grounding, something less related to any one position or campaign or battle.

Interestingly like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, he grew up with wealth and because of it felt a courageous sense of responsibility to demand fairness. It is almost as if–being part of the 1 percent–these leaders could not stomach the moral inconsistency of economic and political inequity for the 99%.

Above all, it was his mistress of words that elevated art and politics into an affair of quiet but fervent action. People found meaning not only in dissent but in cooperation and non violence.

I have long been captivated by Havel’s stories, his journey, his moral grounding and words.

“Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.”

“I really do inhabit a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.”

“Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance.”

“Despite all the political misery I am confronted with every day, it still is my profound conviction that the very essence of politics is not dirty; dirt is brought in only by wicked people. I admit that this is an area of human activity where the temptation to advance through unfair actions may be stronger than elsewhere, and which thus makes higher demands on human integrity. But it is not true at all that a politician cannot do without lying or intriguing. That is sheer nonsense, often spread by those who want to discourage people from taking an interest in public affairs. Of course, in politics, just as anywhere else in life, it is impossible and it would not be sensible always to say everything bluntly. Yet that does not mean one has to lie. What is needed here are tact, instinct and good taste.”

It’s hard not to feel in our day that the political discourse of our time, our nation, our state has been brought low not because we don’t know how to elevate our dialogue but because we are afraid to challenge ourselves to think, act, reflect and stand outside of today’s narrow comfort zone.

Havel stood outside of the comfort zone of complicity. He did not pander to the lowest common denominator: He spoke up to everyone because he treasured their dignity, their intelligence, their dreams and it unleashed a nation to find its own voice.

We are so much more than what we’ve become.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

The Tacoma News Tribune’s gentle elbow to Seattle calling for adherence to the tunnel cost overrun provision–requiring “Seattle area” taxpayers to foot the bill for any potential cost overruns–does little to engender meaningful dialogue between our cities.

The devolution into an “eye for an eye” dialogue is unfortunately likely to follow. If Tacoma’s leadership begins to push, prod and agitate for implementation of the cost overrun provision regardless of the facts on the ground, such as any actual cost overruns, one can only ponder how destructive it would be for relationships in our state.

I certainly understand the tension that exists economically today in Tacoma and across the state. It is easy for some to consider the tunnel a “gold plated” project. But the Seattle area is the economic engine of our region. Our public infrastructure is everyone’s public infrastructure. It is simply time to stop thinking of our state’s transportation infrastructure as a disconnected series of pork projects and more of an integrated, modern, 21st Century system for freight, commuters, residents and everyone else. It is the lifeline of our economy. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma are linked. We need each other.

We are one state and we need to appreciate the value of a strong economy to Seattle, King County, the Puget Sound region and statewide. To build our economy, we need King, Pierce and Snohomish counties on more than good terms and that means political as well as financial alignment.

I have often noted that the 36th Legislative District in Seattle is a net contributor of taxes in every category of public endeavor. This does not entitle us to anything other than participation in the dialogue, but it does remind us that it’s useful and valuable to present budgetary transparency into how the money flows in our state.

In aggregate we send more money in sales, business and occupation and property taxes to Olympia than we receive in education, health care, housing, economic development–every single category of public services. When you include the tunnel and the 520 projects, Seattle itself comes out ’1 for 1′ or ‘neutral’ in gasoline taxes to transportation benefits. This means, simply, that even with two of the largest projects in state history Seattle just gets to “even” on the ‘taxes paid to benefits received’ scale.

I don’t believe that our friends in Tacoma really, truly want to go down this path because the ultimate end game would tear at our state’s unity. We’re better than to single out one project for an unfair policy that would, if implemented statewide across all sectors and projects, be terribly destructive on all fronts.

If the unfair and unwise Seattle cost overrun provision is ultimately ever implemented, the journey would be swift to include similar provisions in every category of public projects such as school construction, college building projects, highways statewide, prisons and so much more. This path would lead to division at every level in every community.

Requiring a city or community to pay for potential cost overruns for a state project is unprecedented in the history of Washington. It would signal the most profound structural shift in policy in generations in the area of public expenditures.

On a broader level, the great danger for those who historically enjoy political attacks on Seattle–the state’s largest city and an important economic engine of our state– is that one day the lion may do more than roar. This is a scenario–even a storyline–we see across the country in states where a major city is the economic epicenter of the state: Boston, Baltimore, New York, Chicago, Salt Lake City, Philadelphia and elsewhere.

In each of these cities, including Seattle, the common political hit is to attack the major city and pretend that taxpayers statewide are dramatically subsidizing our projects, people and institutions. It sure sells in political campaigns to run “against” the 800 gorilla. When it comes to how the money really flows, however, the truth is profoundly different. And the truth is often very uncomfortable for those who levy the attacks.

The subsidy of taxes flow–aggressively and consistently– not into Seattle but out.

No one wants cities, counties and communities to enter into a destructive environment where we list or count taxes paid and benefits received for every category and project. It would ultimately do little for our relationships and our belief in our common future. We are One Washington with one future and we must resist attacking one another.

There is a mythical and likely fictional story in Olympia that in the early part of the last century a few legislators from Eastern Washington were–as usual–criticizing Seattle in the press for ‘taking all of our taxes’ and baiting the urban representatives with the common political hits. Finally, one year a handful of Seattle legislators lost their patience and introduced legislation to require that no county could receive more in public benefits than they sent to Olympia in taxes. Everyone knew it was a political game until the Seattle legislators kept the bill moving along through the process. As the Eastern Washington legislators paced the halls and finally asked for the game to end, the Seattle legislators secured a handshake deal that the political rhetoric about city folks spending all of the rural taxpayers money would stop. And apparently, according to arm chair historians, it did. For a time.

It would be undignified and dishonorable of me to dig out that old legislation and re-introduce it in the 2011 Legislative Session.

Wouldn’t it?

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

In my periodic look at government reform, I offer a second specific suggestion: Let’s courageously ask the structural question of what level of government should deliver what type of services given today’s reality. In essence our current model of the basic relationship between cities, counties, special taxing districts such as ports and the state has been virtually unchanged for decades.

Now, it’s time for a radical rethinking of the relationship between the various levels of government. That means more than just the City of Seattle, King County and the State of Washington, it means the interconnected relationship between different levels of government from top to bottom.

Why? Because the city, county and state have different operational and financial roles. They have different core competencies. It’s time to question those roles from a systems perspective and to ponder who should be doing what for the benefit of taxpayers, citizens and government’s ability to delivery.

Given that the state holds the power to grant taxation authority to different levels of government, we need to approach the core question in a fresh way. That doesn’t mean, of course, that everything is inherently broken or inefficient, it just means that it’s been a long time since we’ve conducted a sort of ‘zero based performance assessment’ of our system of delivering public services.

We have created hundreds of taxing districts, special taxing authorities, and dedicated funds, and yet we hardly seem to be able to keep track of them. We need a performance audit of sorts of our own distribution of taxing authority not simply to get a handle on who is charging what, but to ask together what model makes the most sense in today’s world.

Last year I asked the state Department of Revenue if we could create a simple, elegant website where a person could enter their home or business address and EVERY tax they paid–and the direct public services they received for it–would be delivered easily on one page. The data doesn’t exist in one place (county auditors, state, etc.) and would be expensive and complex to develop. That tells me that we have become so decentralized in our management of our taxing authority that we’re losing clarity. And it tells us that our IT systems are stuck in yesterday’s era without simple interoperabillity.

For example on the service delivery side: Today there is a Seattle Office of Civil Rights, a King County Office of Civil Rights, and a state Human Rights Commission. The problem surfaces when you look deeper at what the three offices do. A majority of grievance cases filed in Washington state come from King County, according to my recollection. A majority of cases filed in King County come from Seattle.

Simply, the data suggests we should probably have a Seattle area regional office, paid by shared resources but accountable to one entity, to handle all civil rights cases that are filed in this region and save the duplication of services across three levels of government.

In essence, we could probably be smarter financially and operationally by working together in a more structured way. In yesterday’s world every level of government needed to show how seriously it took a given issue by creating an organizational structure or a program. In today’s world we need government to focus on quality, cost, value, efficiency and effectiveness because the stakes matter to real people living real lives.

I don’t believe that today’s political debate is really about taxes alone. I think it’s really about a more nuanced questioning by the public of the value of public sector service delivery. The public is demanding higher quality services and products at a better price in literally every area of life. From Costco to Starbucks to Restoration Hardware, you can see it in the product lines. In government, it comes out in public discussions about quality of services.

People want to see and touch a sense of value, purpose and meaning….from business, government, religious affiliations and every other institution in their lives.

The largest special taxing district in my district is actually the Port of Seattle. They have both substantial taxing authority and a major role to play in regional economic development. The port is vital to my district’s economic health on every level. Still, from a systems perspective, despite my personal and political support for the current elected and appointed leadership, It’s hard not to wonder whether the state may have, in fact, granted too much taxing authority to the Port with too little transparency relative to other levels of government. I’m not suggesting it is fundamentally broken but I do question whether it’s been too long that the Legislature has conducted a serious review of port districts around the state relative to performance and value and role.

David Brewster of Crosscut raised many related structural questions in a Friday post here. Are we entering a time when Seattle–and her generous taxpayers–will effectively ‘go it alone’ or is it a time for a robust regional approach to our challenges?

Brewster asks, in effect, whether its realistic in today’s polarized environment for progressive Seattle and more conservative surrounding areas to design and build a common agenda–and choose to execute upon it. Good question. We have so many regional bodies and entities–some with their own taxing authority such as Sound Transit–some with strategic oversight and access to federal money such as Puget Sound Regional Council and Puget Sound Partnership.

I can’t help but to ponder whether all of these separate entities–many with their own purse strings– have the unintended consequence of taking the pressure off of elected officials to move outside of their immediate comfort zones to build a more strategic regional agenda.

If we had fewer such special organizations, would we have a more coordinated approach to regional thinking and action plans? Tough call and I could probably make the case either way.

Yet clearly we are at risk of balkanizing our own regional issues. But let’s be serious….from a systems perspective, are the interests of Tukwila or Shoreline or even Bellevue really that radically different than Seattle? Of course not. We sink or swim together.

On some level, my sense is that King County should be the major player in regional thinking.

Over at King County our friends must face the cold hard reality that their critical areas of regional purview– transportation, land use, waste treatment, law enforcement–may in fact be at odds with the old fashioned idea that people living in unincorporated areas of King County can realistically expect a level of service enjoyed in urban communities. It’s not realistic. County Executive Dow Constantine and Deputy Executive Fred Jarrett have clearly embarked on a systems analysis of the structural challenges facing King County. I applaud their conviction and their work, but they can’t do it alone. They need both local governments and Olympia’s help.

In that spirit of candor, let’s ask: Is it fair and appropriate for taxpayers in my Seattle district to pay substantial King County taxes that pay not only for regional services that benefit everyone, but continue the old model of providing direct service delivery in unincorporated King County? Where you choose to live matters–and there are consequences and implications– and it’s not realistic to assume that city taxpayers should continue to subsidize direct services in unincorporated areas to such an extent.

We as the Legislature are, I suggest, inevitably going to look to local and county governments for more direct, hands-on service delivery–with more flexible taxing authority– as one strategy of reducing the scope of state government.

It’s time for a radical rethinking of how we deliver taxing authority to local governments. We must venture into the politically dangerous area where we begin to question old assumptions about what type of services can be delivered where.

Yet let’s acknowledge that our state budget deficit means that we have little option but to consider changing the taxing authority we provide to local governments and shift to a model where additional service obligations rest at the local level. I don’t know how quickly or how far this idea will ultimately go but it seems to me that we have little choice but to explore those serious questions.

Local government officials face the cold hard reality of balanced budget obligations and the burden of governing. We share that burden in Olympia. We are in this together and this is not something we can alone. Only through our partnership with local governments can we examine these tough issues.

I call upon the Governor to assemble a policy working group of legislators, county executives and mayors from across the state and engage in a meaningful, serious and substantive policy analysis and review of who delivers what services–and ask the question of what is the right model for today’s world.

Who should do what?

What lessons have we learned from our current model regarding what works and what does not? Where do local and county governments excel and where do they struggle? What is the most valuable, helpful and useful role for Olympia to support a more coordinated approach to service delivery across cities, counties and regions? And as a teachable moment: What are best practices from around the nation that make sense in today’s world regardless of the political reform it would require here at home?

And, specifically, should we shift more taxing authority and service delivery obligations to local governments and provide less funds directly from Olympia?

Do we have too many or too few local and special taxing districts? Should we provide reform the very nature of how cities, counties and the state interoperate in our collective efforts to serve the public?

We are one state, one Washington, and we need to care for one another. We need to support a statewide system of education, transportation and other vital public and human infrastructure. Yet we also live in a changing world that requires genuine and deep thought about tomorrow’s challenges.

Like most of you, I have very few hard answers but I can’t help but feel these are important questions.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

Regular readers know that I am passionately non-partisan and non-political in this personal blog. I work hard to raise real policy issues and to do so with a genuine respect for the institution of government and to avoid front line politics. My goal in this post is not to attack any initiative or proposal before the voters but to elevate the philosophical level of the dialogue itself about the core public values of minority rights and majority rule.

I readily acknowledge that on the surface it might not appear there are large numbers of Seattle Democrats who share a passion with the Republicans about the role, value and integrity of the 10th Amendment. And yet I do share a heart-felt belief that the 10th Amendment to our nation’s constitution is a critical element of the power dynamic between state capitals and Washington, D.C., and I wish my party held a more nuanced view of the fundamental constitutional issue itself.

I acknowledge that I cringe when I see virtually every bill passed by Congress grasp onto the commerce clause as rationalization and justification. States are the laboratories of innovation and we must always hold that title. That is made harder by a proud federal government that seems to stretch its purview regardless of party or position. When the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House they, too, found it impossible to resist the sweet temptations of the commerce clause.

And so it is with a sense of disappointment that I see so many conservative activists who hold a view that we should put our state history aside and readily pass modifications to our statutes and state constitution through initiatives to require 2/3 and super majority votes by the Legislature in order to raise taxes of any sort. I respect the voter’s rights to do so, of course, but I encourage us to rethink our current passions for the central idea.

Our state and federal constitution holds a firm mistrust of super majority requirements. The list of super majority vote requirements is slim and includes the historically seldom used Senate cloture. Usually it is, as one would expect, used to prevent easy modification of the constitution itself.

The philosophical issue of super majorities is based upon both protection of minority rights and the absolutism of majority rule. Both sides win from a careful balance of minority and majority interests, a balance our founders took very, very seriously and that stands to this day. The problem, in my view, is that we have today become intoxicated with the idea that taxation levels rise to the level of risk, importance and influence that we should equate that tiny vote–any vote on any tax no matter how inconsequential–with the extraordinary step of modifying our very constitution.

In our anger and frustration, we have lost site of the importance of citizen-legislators engaged in representative democracy itself. (Term limits once seemed like a magic elixir only to fade over time when the public discovered that in many ways it only increased the power of the unelected institutional infrastructure of government staff, lobbyists and professionals).

The rationale for firmly taking away the simple majority of legislators’ right to govern, naturally with minority participation and role, is morally questionable. Taxes currently hold massive public attention and sway, and yet in times past social, political, moral and financial issues found themselves at the very heart of the public’s mindset.

Initiative 1053 comes about because many advocates felt angry with the Legislature for modifying I-960, a position that is naturally understandable on one important level. Yet the historical precedence for modifying voter-driven initiatives is a vital part of our state constitution itself because we believe in the core foundation of representative democracy. We elect people as citizen legislators to wrestle with the complex, difficult challenge of being a STATE representative. That means we have a moral and public obligation to represent both the immediate short term views our district constituents and also the long term interests of all state citizens.

Legislatures Democratic and Republican have modified voter-approved initiatives following the constitutional period of two years since our state’s founding. We have eventually done so on virtually every complex subject the voters have seen, a policy decision made by our state’s founders because it provides the flexibility we as a state need to deal with reality of governing. Majorities of duly elected citizen legislators of both parties over generations have made policy choices to modify initiatives and referenda because they felt it was in their fiduciary interests as legislators to do so. That is not anti-democratic, it is the very essence of a strong and vigorous democracy that cares about policy.

I stand philosophically with our founders against requiring super majorities to tie the hands of the Legislature to vote by majority on virtually any issue other than modifying the state constitution itself. Power of the minority is critical but not absolute.

The right of 50% plus one of citizens to be represented by 50% plus one of citizen legislators who stand for the majority values of the majority of local communities is the driver of our nation’s success.

What comes after taxes?

If the majority of voters–who hold supreme and unquestioned power in our state–wish to require that there should be supermajorities of legislators to approve taxes or abortion rights or education funding or other tough issues, I will of course respect that position to the best of my ability given my fiduciary obligation to represent my district and our state. Yet I urge voters to see the dark side of today’s rabid focus on one category of public policy issues–taxes–when tomorrow it could be something we do not expect to surface nor desire.

In twenty years, what if we have a handful of sweeping categories where super majorities are required to conduct everyday business of legislating?

Perhaps if we truly no longer believe in representative democracy, and we believe that direct representation on topics such as taxes, abortion, death penalty, education, health care, transportation and more is a more effective model itself, we should simply install a computer in every home in our state. We could then require seven million people to vote directly and adopt super majorities for every single issue, every vote, every topic and every bill regardless of category.

That obvious exaggeration does show that we must always maintain a healthy balance between representative democracy and direct democracy, where the people’s voice is always in control, as was our founders’ treasured goal.

We elect regular people living real lives to go to Olympia as citizen legislators to study bills, to learn, to debate, to question, to struggle and wrestle with the complexity of issues–and then to vote. And the public can un-elect those same people 24 months later. That model, combined with the constant and healthy energy of direct democracy when the legislature does not hear well, makes our larger system of democracy work in some sense of harmony.

Our state constitution–with initiatives and referenda at the heart– is sacred to us all in that it protects individual liberties and the public’s voice with fierce conviction. Our national constitution is the moral grounding of the greatest nation imaginable that shines a light of hope around the world. The founders of our state and nation built a carefully balanced model of representative and direct democracy that used super majorities with unmatched and impressive reserve.

It is ironic at best, and deeply sinister at worst, that it only requires a 50%-plus one vote majority to pass an initiative requiring a super majority vote of the Legislature.

We are so much more than what we’ve become.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

Reuven after touring the 787 at Farnborough

Here at Farnborough Air Show outside London, Boeing is making announcements by the day of new orders. And we’re all thrilled to see the global aviation industry slowly getting back on its feet. The latest is a $9.1 billion order of 30 777′s from Emirates.

An undercurrent of the discussion for Washington state is, of course, the long term relationship between Boeing and Puget Sound.

I won’t repeat the numerous stories about Boeing’s commitment, or the issues themselves, but I would suggest that we need a courageous conversation between the state, labor and Boeing to discuss how we can build a 21st Century partnership together.

The state Department of Commerce has a small booth here at the show with a trade representative (not a state employee, a consultant who represents the state’s European Office). They are attempting to support Washington companies expanding to Europe while recruiting companies to bring jobs and growth to our state. Yet the competition is fierce and Mississippi, Connecticut and many other states (to say nothing of regions and countries) are aggressively recruiting companies in aviation….tier 1 suppliers and others. We obviously realize the implications and take it seriously as evidenced by the department’s presence here but sometimes we still seem to be flat footed on a larger level as a state.

We can’t forget that no one on Boeing’s board hails from Washington state anymore. It is not a trivial fact. It’s symbolic of a much deeper, long term challenge of maintaining relationships.

We need a long-term, systematic, radical, aggressive, passionate commitment to the aviation sector not solely because of Boeing or its employees, but because it’s part of our unique value proposition as a region and we’ve created a large subculture. We need a robust business development plan for our state that goes beyond brochures and reaches out to the entire subculture of the industry in every arena. Thousands of suppliers, jobs, companies and concentric circles all come together in a holistic relationship–and the state has a vital role to play.

We need to recognize that Boeing values an educated workforce in aviation but faces a massive wave of retirements in its workforce. Our policies around workforce development in aviation need to be central to our larger strategies in higher education and lifelong learning.

We need to appreciate that the tension between Boeing and its unions are not going to go away without a long term commitment to find common ground. Hopefully the state can in some way help facilitate that dialogue with thoughtful reflection and mutual commitment….and without judgement. The 787 plant issues require mutual understanding and a courageously honest conversation…without judgement or anger, hostility or resentfulness. It’s time.

More than anything, we as a state need deep humility, appreciation and a firm understanding of the treasure of jobs, community and civic engagement, taxes and economic health that comes from having the premier aviation company in the world in our state. Our policy, political and economic partnerships are strong on some levels and weak on others. We can and must do better or in 20 years the aviation sector will be a department down the hall.

Walking around the airshow, people see my name badge and “Seattle” and say, “Oh, Seattle, the home of Boeing!”

And I say, “and proud of it!”

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

(DISCLOSURE: I am here at the show in my professional business capacity, not as a legislator, and no public dollars or resources in any fashion are being expended in association with this trip. Also, I have received campaign contributions from Boeing)

The institutional shift of government from the official business of the Legislature to the campaign season occurred while I was away on family vacation. When I left three weeks ago, the exhaustion and discussion from the 2010 legislative sessions was still palpable and filled private conversations among legislators and lobbyists alike. Upon my return, campaign season is in full gear and the session is a distant memory.

As the Legislature struggled to complete the work of the 2010 regular and special sessions, lobbyists and advocates representing the full range of interest groups–left, right, business, labor, environment, banks, credit unions, oil companies, small business, realtors, cities, counties, restaurants, children, mental health, nurses, physicians, teachers, architects, landscape professionals, think tanks of all sorts–hovered outside the Chamber doors waiting for brief moments to chat with legislators about budgets, issues, ideas, proposals and policies. They were deeply appreciative of five minutes of our time in the hall to discuss a bill or to count votes on a controversial proposal. No one discussed or even implied discussing campaigns at all. Everyone was ‘all business’ about the public policies at hand.

Now, the cycle turns. Nearly every day interest groups release their “ratings” of legislators on their issues. The “ratings” vary widely but have the common theme of measuring how the 147 legislators voted on the agenda of the various interest groups. Questionnairs from nearly every group fill the email inbox and require incumbents and challengers alike to write down various policy positions. From those ratings and questionnairs, endorsements for re-election show up on Facebook, Twitter and press releases. And frequently those endorsements are attached to a check.

A month after the session, a vast majority of the 147 legislators–myself included–spend hours per week or more calling many of those same lobbyists, advocates and community organizers asking for financial contributions and endorsements for the 2010 campaign season.

We raise money from the advocates and lobbyists–and hopefully real people living real lives who believe in our positions and values–to campaign and to purchase campaign material from TV, radio, billboards, mailings, yard signs to political consultant insight.

While money is critical, knocking on 15,000 doors in a state House race is actually what pushes you over the edge, in my view. That’s the beauty of serving in the state rather than national level. When you speak personally and directly with a voter at a farmer’s market, or on a doorstep and discuss a policy priority while she holds her child’s hand, no amount of advertising or campaign material is going to change how she views you. That’s the beauty of a true democracy. That’s where your idealism shines and your values about good government and making a difference remain invigorated. That is where your belief that we can together build a more engaged government comes alive. It’s where you feel alive politically.

In terms of money, however, the state is but a tiny microcosm of how unreal Congress has become with respect to the cost of running for office. Imagine what it must be like to raise thousands of dollars per DAY in order to raise the funds necessary to withstand a tough race for Congress.

Money in politics is inevitable and part of our history and not inherently evil, of course. But surely the ideals of our democracy, the values of our founding fathers and mothers, the hope of a republican form of government, means that we can do so much better than we do today.

And it’s hard to imagine that this is the ideal form of how our democracy could work. Surely, at the least, we could shorten our campaign season in some fashion such as parliamentary systems model. Public financing of campaigns still seems like an untested and distant policy prospect and, even then, I wonder about the legitimate First Amendment rights of individuals (as opposed to corporations as individual entities–I’m with Obama on that one). Perhaps we could at least begin with judicial races in our state and determine the viability of the larger model. I truly don’t know and struggle with the policy implications on all sides.

We as legislators vote on legislation impacting interest groups and then days, weeks or months later rely upon those same interests for donations for campaigns. In Congress, the boundaries are even less elegant. I believe that for most elected officials and advocates alike, on a personal and political level, the cycle of political life is awkward at best.

Let’s have the courageous honesty to acknowledge that as a democracy we are so much more than what we’ve become.

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.

The numbers now suggest we can probably assume that Mike McGinn will be Seattle’s new mayor. I offer my sincere congratulations to Mike for a well run, grassroots, passionate, engaged, low budget and focused campaign.

I came to know Mike a bit last year during my own campaign for the Legislature when we would spend time together at the Ballard Farmer’s Market each Sunday–me holding a yellow Carlyle sign and he campaigning for the parks levy. We joked that campaigns in Seattle are won or lost at farmer’s markets, and we both remarked “either you get that or you don’t.” Our kids are friends in the same public middle school.

I find most of his unorthodox, even ideological positions to be insightful and purposeful. His aggressive support for forced congestion gives me a case of indigestion. Still, he backs up his case with the data and rhetoric of a good litigator.

A few weeks ago, days prior to Mike’s dramatic announcement that he would accept the will of the council and move forward on the tunnel regardless of his personal opinion, I decided to back Joe Mallahan. I was frankly concerned that Mike would use every elbow and legal tactic in the book to try and halt the tunnel at every stage–and that relations between Seattle and Olympia would virtually implode.

Then, candidly (at the risk of being labeled a Monday morning quarterback) I thought Mike’s public statements about his tunnel position were nuanced, authentic and sincere, not the “flip flop” that the media tried to portray. The public–in an educated city– clearly agreed that he was being consistent in his opposition to the tunnel but dealing with political reality (being mayorial) given the city council’s 9-0 vote to move forward with the tunnel. We share a serious perspective about the need for the tunnel to be delivered on time, on budget, and it’s a central priority for me in the years to come.

It’s time to move forward with the issues facing our city in 2010 and beyond. There are many more issues than the tunnel upon which we agree and all of us in public service need to engage together–city, county and state–to build our quality of life. Jobs, education, health care, affordable housing and more require a coordinated, strategic approach. I hope Joe Mallahan will stay engaged in the civic and political challenges facing our community and lend a hand on the issues that inspire him. We need his time and drive.

My hope is that we can build a new relationship between Seattle and Olympia based upon respect and recognition of the vital roles both play; that we can engage in bold systems thinking about what level of government should provide which type of public service; that we can be a laboratory for innovation in education, technology, clean energy and transportation. We have hundreds of thousands of new people moving to Seattle in the years to come. We’re not ready. But we can be with a genuine strategy.

Mike is passionate, engaged and aggressive about issues that motivate him to believe in a bright future. I know a certain unnamed citizen legislator who has been similarly accused.

Together we can do all those things we cannot do alone.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

To me, higher education is the spirit and soul of our state’s love of learning. It is the core of our society, the essence of what it takes to create an educated community with engaged citizens with intellectual curiosity as our foundation. It is the driver of our ability to help people get access to opportunity to learn a trade and feed their families. In Torah, we learn that education is the greatest honor and obligation of all. It is, perhaps, the central reason why the tiny, insignificant tribe of Jewish people have been so unique in terms of survival across thousands of difficult years of history. A relentless passion for education is part of the very DNA of my experience personally and professionally. It is how I found my journey as the only child of a single mother who spent years on public assistance to a husband, father, technology entrepreneur and citizen legislator with a master’s degree from Harvard.

Serving as a representative of the people of the 36th Legislative District is an honor and I treasure the work. It is especially intimidating and meaningful to me to succeed the extraordinary Rep. Helen Sommers who held higher education deep in her heart.

As a new legislator I have reflected upon where we stand as a state yet do not pretend, for a moment, to have answers. I am neither qualified nor elightened enough to propose real answers. Yet I can sense a growing realization in our state that we must embrace a new approach to higher education. I cannot do this job without being honest–I hope courageously so–about my belief that we must embrace systems change. That doesn’t mean it must be complete tomorrow but we must not cease from the work of genuine reform itself. We do have a wonderful system in the larger structural context of yesterday. We treasure our institutions of learning. But with that respect and admiration comes a need to push, prod and agitate for meaningful approaches to the future that push the limits of yesterday’s model. It is why we have a citizen legislature and not a professional class of elected officials in Olympia: To agitate for improvement even when it seems we’re moving along just fine. It is always–always–easy to argue that the status quo is doing fine. There are many reports, task forces and commissions to confirm this conclusion.

The world is changing and transformation of how people learn does not yield. Old models of political organizing are not serving our needs.

Like all institutions the internal infrastructure of government talks of change, courage and the future but acts timidly and cautiously. That is not always a bad thing, of course. Fear, uncertainty and doubt hover above us all during these changing times in our world history. The internal politics of academia rival the great battles of our political history and I, like most others, just try and keep my head low.

The September 2009 Higher Education Coordinating Board newsletter outlines everything we need to know about higher education but we’re afraid to act upon. Take a look here. I encourage you to read the entire outline of the information presented.

Don Heller, professor of education and Director of the Center for Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University, made a compelling presentation before the panel. Two other presentations offered equally useful insight into the need for new approaches to higher education in America. Dennis Jones, president of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, and Jane Wellman, executive director, Delta Cost Project.

First, some paraphrased definition around the problem from the presentations by Heller, Jones and Wellman:

‘As a nation we need to increase degree attainment by 5% annually to deal with the massive retirement wave of the baby boomers who boost our education level dramatically or we’re headed for a crash in the education level of our entire nation. We have a train wreck coming where we will experience a massive slide in the educational level. We have a huge race/ethnic educational gap between whites/Asians and blacks/Hispanics. The U.S. spends the highest percentage of its GDP on higher education in the world but other countries get more bang for the buck. (Sound familiar friends of health care?) The federal stimulus money helped bail out our last budget but that dog won’t hunt for the next one. We aren’t going to go back to the old days. Federal, state and tuition funding won’t get us out of this structural change. We need a coordinated approach to make cost management work, private sources, tuition policies linked together with local/private/state/federal aid, and state and federal direct support. We face the biggest faculty turnover in history yet we don’t have a robust strategy to address it. About 25% of the cost of a bachelor’s degree can be described as credits in excess of those necessary to achieve a degree.’

You get the idea.

In other words, the societal cost of the status quo–the pain of making excuses that bold change isn’t possible–the unwillingness to acknowledge the need to get our own family house in order in terms of value and not just price–the implications of drinking our own kool aid compared to other states–is too great for us to thrive in a 21st Century global community. This economic shakeout is the equivalent of a wake up call into reality. The mortgage bubble has burst. Our credit cards are due and every other cliche you can think of regarding ‘wake up to reality.’ While we are convinced we’re doing well tactically in our state, our strategic challenges remain substantial.

We need, simply, to educate more people to higher levels. Many more people. This has been the mantra and agenda of our state leaders. The answer in the old days was more money for the same institutional structures of yesterday. The answer now is different.

Now, we face an extraordinary, once-in-a-generation opportunity in this larger economic crisis confronting our country. Do we have the moral courage to embrace it with courage and conviction here at home? It’s time to look at internal systems reform and bold progress not as a surface, cost cutting, anti-government exercise but from a progressive, thoughtful, fiduciary role of getting more value for students and our future. Just as in health care, we are paying for inputs not outputs, process not results, back end systems not front end services. We don’t reward or penalize the K-12 system for sending ill prepared students to higher education we just accept whatever comes along. We don’t put real money behind our idea of rewarding successful outcomes for higher education instead we retreat, year after year, into the same broken model of paying everything up front when a student enrolls regardless of other factors. We have failed, in short, to have the courageous honesty to acknowledge that our current model is based upon a 19th Century structure.

The fundamental public policy challenge facing our state in higher education, in my view, is how we can together engage in a more meaningful dialogue with all of the stakeholders–students, faculty, administrators, legislators, governors, trustees, unions, industry– about embracing the opportunity of this crisis. Will higher education enjoy its 15 minutes of fame to capture the attention of our state’s leadership? I don’t know. But it should move forward anyway with those changes and improvements that it knows should be accomplished.

We need the institutional infrastructure of higher education and our political establishment to wake up to a new reality of action where the status quo model is imploding. The lack of accountability for outcomes such as degree production is not sustainable. If the numbers go down instead of up, if retention rates fall, if costs increase, if families can’t afford access to opportunity, who is held accountable today? No one, of course, and that’s how we seem to like it politically. And so costs rise and rise and access to opportunity is reduced and little changes. We ask the HECB–a loose federation of higher education allies really–to issue reports, study the issues, argue for lower tuition, link the two and four year systems, etc. but they have no formal role over money and no role beyond strategic planning. We ask the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to coordinate the money but not commodity back end administrative systems between 34 colleges. We ask individual colleges and universities to focus on retention and outcomes but we don’t link money to this central philosophical goal because it’s inconsistent with our age-old idea of decentralized power in Washington. And so we issue reports year after year that say the same thing.

Of course, by way of context, we’re operating in a state where we have nine statewide elected officials as a reaction during the progressive era of the late 1880s against centralized power of rail, timber and industrial money and power. Our history is one of trying to keep the rich–or the government in Olympia– from becoming even more powerful over us regular folks. It plays out in higher education historically so that we like each college to be in charge of everything because it fits our idea of decentralized authority. Even when that means wasting money by not even coordinating the purchase of commodities from pencils to servers to textbooks. We are extremists on the side of radical decentralization even when it borders on the absurd. And wastes millions.

Most of all, we live in a political fantasy world where we pretend that we are an egalitarian state of higher education where everyone is treated equally (by tuition, full time equivalent funding, infrastructure, etc.) and so we are trapped under a common, low ceiling of expectations. The truth of the matter is much more complicated, uncomfortable and it shatters myths. The truth is we do have differential models. We just don’t acknowledge it very openly.

Let me be clear: I’m not arguing for concentration of power, money, authority. I am arguing for a bolder approach to a statewide strategy of higher education with more teeth than reports, studies, commissions and presentations that all seem to lead in the same general direction. I’m arguing for a model where presentations about our challenges, and recommendations, turn into action. I’m arguing for courageous honesty about what works and what does not. I’m arguing that we should move toward customization, localization and personalization of learning to make a step forward in our student progress.

We have a differentiated system of higher education despite pretending that we don’t. It impacts students, faculty, parents, administrators and legislators and local businesses. It is time to ask questions about the role of different types of institutions instead of pretending that every institution can be everything to all people. In essence we expect a 30 year old single mother student who drives 75 miles to attend a training course at Walla Walla Community College to live by the same general rules and regulations as an 18 year old student at the University of Washington in Seattle. We erect artificial barriers to prevent healthy, vigorous competition between colleges. We charge the same for tuition and regulate institutions the same from Grays Harbor to Spokane, Bellingham to Cheney, Seattle to Pullman. One size fits all government is old, stale and very expensive. Let’s move on.

There are a lot of ‘problem statements’ here and not many answers. I’ve only been in the Legislature 10 months and I couldn’t map out a comprehensive strategy if I tried. But I know that we need to come together in a new way and engage together in many of these structural, systems questions. I know that our institutions of higher education need to embrace the idea of servant leadership: Where ideas are presented not pushing from the top to the bottom, but reengaging in student lives bottom up.

In essence, I do not believe that a heavily regulated, Olympia-centric model of higher education can work in the 21st Century. I believe we need to use the marketplace of ideas more aggressively to meet student and society’s needs in a transformational time. I believe we need to ask the questions raised by this three part blog series: If we had the courage to design a system today to educate more people to higher levels, what would it look like? For real.

A very few specific, random (strategic and tactical) thoughts from here:

We should free the University of Washington to embrace their own tuition, capital and private sector partnership policies while protecting the core public mission of the institution. There are those who fear a ‘high tuition, high aid’ model’ for sticker shock on the poor but I argue that the cost of a low tuition aid model is not sustainable and we are subsidizing the wrong people at the wrong levels under our current system. Let’s start with high aid and prove we mean it. I do not support the immediate release of all state rules and regulations for all institutions of higher education, but let us begin with the UW and monitor, learn and assess the implications for public policy. And we should also embrace a bolder conversation about the role of the branch campuses in Tacoma and Bothell for the UW. They are second class citizens of our four year institutions and it’s not sustainable or efficient. We should expect more of the UW and WSU, our state’s premier institutions of learning, both in terms of internal reforms and in how the money flows. We need them to be entrepreneurs of innovation in higher education and the elite thinkers in systems change for all the world to see. To those whom much is given, much is expected.

We should consider linking the Workforce Development Board and the State Board for Community and Technical College system more tightly. Not all workforce challenges are community college issues but many are. We need a stronger and more coordinated approach that is judged on the economic impact of the work. The lack of accountability in the workforce system calls out for attention. Now more than ever in recent times as people are so desperate for quality programs and retraining and access to lifelong learning to get a job and feed their family. We are failing those who are struggling to hold on especially low income, immigrants, Hispanics and many other people of color, foster children and so many others.

We should consider embarking on a forceful faculty recruitment, training and modernization program where we focus on our instructors from top to bottom in the context of how students learn in the 21st Century. That means less reliance on part-time faculty at our two years systems but higher standards for those full time faculty who are selected. It also means an honest look at issues related to how we reward faculty.

We should consider a new approach between higher education and industry. So many companies continue to struggle to get the right people trained in the right skill sets to perform the right jobs. Our lack of coordination and customer service relationships with industry is unacceptable and we are not doing as well as we pretend in this area. We have built a system where there is no real accountability if we serve the need of companies to fill jobs or not, and workers and our economy suffers. That must change.

We should to ask questions about the role of the comprehensive institutions relative to mission. Where are we still under serving students by area and why? What about those universities–Central Washington University and Eastern Washington in particular–that struggle to grow, scale and serve more students at a time when our needs are so high? Something is not working if they don’t have the pipeline of students beating down the doors at a time when so many need access to opportunity. What can we do better? Is there a compelling and unique public interest in the Evergreen State College being public versus private?

What of our partners in the private universities who operate under the public radar but perform such a vital function in our state? We need to bring them under the tent of expectations and public role in a meaningful way based upon partnerships. Why do we hesitate to embrace them so (such as in our financial aid policies) when they contribute in such a positive fashion to our goal of educating more people to higher levels? They struggle with many of the same issues, of course, but do so with greater flexibility.

The anxiety from the four year institutions about the two year system offering bachelor degrees is based on fear not a larger promise of educating more people to higher levels. There is more than enough access to opportunity to go around if we think holistically and not in silos. Bellevue College is not competition for the University of Washington, one of the premier institutions in the world. They should be cheering the state’s desire to thoughtfully and carefully increase access to appropriate baccalaureate facilities. As in the Tao of leadership, the UW must learn the paradox that by being selfless, the leader enhances self.

We need a new approach to our P-20 strategy and dialogues. The organizational structures, commissions, studies, task forces of the P-20 system are questionable at best. The current silos and players in early learning, K-12, CTC and four year institutions have no interest in a coordinated approach that touches anyone’s money. I get that and I don’t blame them. But real students living real lives are people first and they don’t fit nicely into government silos. Just a thought.

The questions about the political power of the two versus the four year system need to be put openly on the table. Let’s have a transparent conversation together as a system working together. Imagine the social, economic and political impact if we truly and genuinely COMBINED the political influence of the two systems together? We are one team and our intra-system battles belittle us all. It reduces the overall pie for higher education. And they take a huge intangible toll on our collective mission.

We should embark on a bold wave of strategic consolidation of BACK END technology, administrative and operational systems–financial aid, registration, transportation, public safety, maintenance, and so much more–to save hundreds of millions in duplicative COMMODITY services.

We should explore financial policies related to duel enrollment, distance learning and other ‘non traditional’ programs to ensure that MONEY FOLLOWS STUDENTS in tomorrow’s world and isn’t trapped in silos that serve everyone other than the student. We should tear down the ridiculous and harsh financial aid policies we’ve built that prevent so many from accessing opportunity. It’s almost as if we want, subconsciously, to ensure not too many people storm the admissions office demanding financial aid.

We should create a K-14 model where the state provides a funding role in two years of post secondary education of any and all sort to young people. It is, in the end, the way to unleash our nation’s potential in our 21st Century global community as our society ages, becomes more diverse and loses its educational skill level. We need radical, bold and meaningful systems change that could be driven by service. Perform two years of national and community service through AmeriCorps, Peace Corps or the military and we’ll give you two years of college in a 21st Century GI bill of rights.

We should acknowledge that for all of our studies, commissions and task forces, 98% of upper income young people go on to post secondary graduation. At lower income levels, less than half continue within two years of high school. Over three decades of work the institutions of higher education in our state and nation have not closed this gap.

We should not try and ride out this economic restructuring with our heads hung low but rather with them held high by new expectations for ourselves.

We should embrace policies and programs that value successful outcomes for real students living real lives. And the world we want to see in the 21st Century.

In the end, the economic, social and political challenge of educating more people to higher levels has become too serious and difficult for government to handle alone as a department down the hall. This challenge belongs to us all.

Yes we can.

Your partner in service, Reuven.

Sail into a new future

Regardless of who wins as the new mayor, I remain optimistic that there is a growing sense in both cities that it is time for courageous honesty about the relationship between Olympia and Seattle.

The candidates for city council have a much richer, deeper and thoughtful appreciation for the role state government plays. The candidates for mayor recognize the tunnel/Viaduct project will impact our city for the next decade and beyond logistically (construction), financially, economically and politically. Yes the “Seattle amendment” hung on the tunnel bill and, yes, it is a sore spot and a poke in the eye. But even this, too, shall pass when cooler heads prevail. It is after all a STATE highway and the obligation ultimately rests with Olympia.

And then there is education. The Seattle Public Schools needs advocates in Olympia not simply to help with key operational challenges but to step up on funding, policies and programs. Simply, our state’s largest school district in our largest city needs a partner in Olympia. Rep. Scott White, Rep. Jamie Pedersen and many other Seattle legislators have a passionate drive to help the Seattle schools engage Olympia at a much more effective level. The school lobbyist, the indefatigable Clifford Traisman, brings institutional credibility and knowledge.

I hope to embrace the ideal of a new appreciation between Olympia and the University of Washington, for example, not as a Seattle institution but as a light among the states in quality and integrity in higher education.

In the end, on many levels it is inevitable that a state’s largest city–Seattle along with Boston, Providence, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, etc., etc.– will always cause political heartburn in the state capitals. Our history is full of stories of rabble rousing politics between the two subcultures and the tussle will never cease. That’s part of the fun of it all.

But we can embrace the ‘battle’ with humor, humility and honesty. This is, in the end, one of my central objectives as a legislator…to dramatically improve the relationship between Olympia and Seattle to help build our economy and quality of life statewide.

There is change in the air and a newfound sense of hope that together we can do all those things we cannot do alone.

We are seeing a generational change not just of leadership but of attitude.