What’s a little philosophical inconsistency among friends?
Last week in the House Ways & Means Committee we held an emotional hearing about the serious ramifications of proposed budget cuts on small, critical care hospitals in primarily rural areas. From Sunnyside to Willapa, Dayton to Othello, the impact could be devastating given that Medicaid reimbursements could fall by half. The lost state dollars trigger losses in federal matching dollars as well putting many of these facilities in serious financial hardship.
Twenty nine Republican House members and three Democrats recently signed a letter to the Governor making the case why House Bill 2130 should be defeated. The bill, an essential piece of the state budget work in the Special Session, would eliminate Medicaid cost-based reimbursement to the state’s Critical Access Hospitals, a move that would severly impact rural communities. It would potentially reduce reimbursement from Olympia by more than $50 million but those cuts also trigger losses in federal matching dollars so the net hit is doubled.
The impassioned letter was signed by representatives of rural communities statewide. The somber anxiety on the faces of CEOs of these small hospitals was deeply moving. The fear that some these communities could lose their small hospitals is palpable.
Critical Access Hospitals have fewer than 25 inpatient beds, provide 24 hour emergency services, serve rural areas and are long distances from the next closest hospital. There are 38 such of these hospitals representing 40 percent of the total hospitals in the state and serving two-thirds of the area of the state, according to the letter.
And yet.
Once again–like levy equalization and other programs designed to mitigate the effects of rural and property-poor communities– the issue serves as a powerfully symbolic representation of the philosophical inconsistency of those who generically claim government spending is out of control while at the same time seeking funding for local priority projects.
While these legislators argue strenuously, valiantly and understandably against these cuts, some of them have also signed an anti-tax pledge to resist any and all new revenues under any circumstances regardless of the public value of public services. Many of them have made fierce political arguments that government spending is out of control in Olympia and dramatic even radical cuts must be made. Many of these signatory legislators make the case that health care costs for Medicaid–a central driver of the increasing costs in state government–are ‘out of control.’
And so we are faced, once again, with the philosophical inconsistency by which at the rhetorical political level government spending is eviscerated as irresponsible while at the tangible level it is seen as extremely valuable for the economic, social and educational survival of rural communities.
Critical Access Hospitals play a vital role in access to affordable health care. I strongly support them and hope we can find a source of revenue to continue such reimbursements. Ironically, the largest provider of Medicaid services in the state is Harborview, a Seattle-based regional treasure that many of these same legislators have no compunction to cut.
I have argued publicly for a courageously honest public conversation about how tax dollars flow, who pays and who benefit, and what type of state we wish to be. I do this not to arrogantly throw elbows against subsidies for rural communities but to challenge the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-public service rhetoric of those who pretend that such philosophical inconsistency is sustainable.
I do this to attempt to genuinely educate the public about the true cost of asking for disproportionately higher public spending in education, health care, transportation, capital budgets and so much more all the while sending legislators to Olympia who prioritize anti-tax pledges to Washington, D.C.-based anti-government organizations.
If, as some argue, we have a massive state budget deficit because spending from Olympia is out of control, we have that deficit in large because we can no longer sustain an unbalanced status quo by which only 6 primarily urban counties are ‘net contributor’ of taxes while 33 primarily rural are ‘net recipient’ counties.
Our rural communities are part of the soul of our state’s glorious history and residents deserve the same quality education and health care that urban communities receive. I am not troubled by the massively unbalanced subsidy of tax dollars from state government to rural areas, I am troubled by the disingenuous political arguments of those who pretend those subsidies don’t exist and prioritize anti-tax pledges above all else.
We are so much more than what we’ve become.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Just askin’: What does it take to get a 2/3 vote?
Last week Governor Gregoire unveiled her proposed supplemental budget and offered a temporary half-cent sales tax increase to ‘buy back’ critical public services in education, higher education, public safety and health care. Underlying the entire premise of the important announcement, however, is an assumption that I recognize but am not ready to grant: It is an unspoken assumption that the only viable way forward for any sort of comprehensive package of reform and reductions that also includes revenue is a direct vote of the people.
I have long argued that the role of representative democracy is to look deeper, to study harder, to assess objectively and to do our best as elected representatives of the people. We elect real people living real lives to make decisions and then once again face the voters. It is a structural long-term mistake to continually send each and every major decision to the voters regardless of scale, scope or policy implications. A healthy balance between direct and representative democracy requires that legislators must occasionally resist the temptation to punt the tough issues to the voters.
Let’s ask an innocent but serious question of the 147 lawmakers: What does it take to win a 2/3 vote for a comprehensive “grand bargain” between reductions, reform and revenues in Olympia? Rather than sending a package to the ballot, let’s question the core assumption that we can’t find a solution that could garner a supermajority.
I don’t ask this from a position of naivete or defensiveness. It is what it is and there is no supercommittee draconian consequences that won’t otherwise be felt by the cuts we are about to make.
We haven’t yet tried. Perhaps the story in Washington, D.C. proves it can’t be done. But at the state level we have a more fiduciary and nuanced approach to the balanced budgets we must craft each biennium since we can’t print cash. We also are closer to the people and thus more appreciative of the destruction being caused by the state cuts to education, higher education, developmental disabilities, health care, foster care, public safety and more. We are, in my view, generally less ideological than folks whose entire lives and livelihoods depend upon the misplaced title worship that controls Washington, D.C.
The standard line in Olympia from many is that there must be substantial government reform before consideration of any revenues. I agree with that idea in theory–and have voted with an independent streak when I felt the institutional bureaucracy was running the show on a particular idea, program or project. But today we find ourselves at a historic time when we must go deeper than generalities and actually propose policies we want to see implemented regardless of whether one is in the majority or the minority.
So, again, the question is entirely serious. What is the ‘magic list’ of priority government reforms that Republicans and others would like to see realized in order to secure the votes for a comprehensive reform, reductions and revenue package?
Obviously I am not bargaining in public even if I did have the authority (which I assuredly do not). I’m not pretending a deal is possible or desirable given today’s anti-tax environment on the Republican bench and the feeling among many Democrats that the cutting has been inequitable. I am convinced we must have a courageous, open, transparent public conversation with 147 legislators to force each of us to publicly answer a fundamental question: Is there a comprehensive reduction/reform/revenue package that you would support to deal with our state’s massive financial crisis in Olympia rather than punt the problem to the ballot?
If the answer is both ‘no’ and ‘hell no’, then we see firsthand that Washington State really is no different than Washington, D.C. If the answer is yes, then let’s talk about it.
The Senate Republican Caucus has published this list of reform ideas. Some of the ideas make perfectly good sense while some cross the line of common sense at best. But it continues to be among the only actual lists produced to date by the loyal opposition that at least outlines some government reform priorities. This is an opportunity for key Senate leaders to make the case for the reforms they say they want.
The people voted for I-1053 because they wanted raising taxes to be difficult. Fair enough. It’s difficult. But is it so easy for the ideologically anti-tax to say “no” that they don’t even need to articulate what, if anything, would get them to ‘yes’? Is the burden of governing only held by majority Democrats?
It may be a complete and total waste of time to pretend that a supermajority vote is possible for a comprehensive package to deal with this financial crisis, and the only path forward is massive cuts immediately and a direct vote of the people to buy back reductions. But don’t we have a fiduciary obligation to try? Should we not examine in a bold, public manner the options for revenues and force a dialogue about tax exemptions, tax policy, tax options?
Ultimately, don’t those who are leading with criticism of any revenues have a public responsibility to express a more detailed plan of their budget proposals?
A supermajority vote in Olympia for a comprehensive budget solution–encompassing reductions, reforms and revenues– may be a nebulous idea that fails to galvanize our public policy debates due to the ugly ideology of our national political dialogue, but don’t we have an obligation to try?
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
The eloquence of Renton Technical College lobbyists
The juxtaposition of Thanksgiving alongside the chill winter rain had me in a melancholy and gray mood ponderous of the challenges I’ll face next week as a member of the Ways & Means Committee in the Special Session of the Legislature to deal with budget cuts.
Amidst a quiet day I stumbled upon this video from the students of Renton Technical College and my day was transformed. The music lifted me up, the message stirred me and I felt invigorated to tackle our challenges anew.
For whatever reason–the pent up stress, the anxiety of traveling to Olympia leaving Wendy to manage the household alone, the time-sensitive issues around my day job in software–came rushing out and the tears streamed from my face as I saw a reflection in the mirror in the video. I could imagine the hours spent preparing the script, music, production, schedule and roles. I could envision myself behind the camera organizing such a quiet, dignified lobbying effort that speaks more elegantly than any lobbyist dinner.
I had the honor of serving on the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, one of the first appointments made by Gov. Gregoire after her contested election in 2004. My term on the board was invigorating, exciting, interesting and painfully frustrating. At times the lethargy of the institutional infrastructure is enraging and the resistance to change overwhelming, but through amazing, dedicated service at 34 college statewide–and a tremendous Olympia team–by thousands of instructors and administrators the lives of people are transformed through hands-on training, workforce development, ESL, adult basic education and academic transfer programs.
Because of my impatience I was not always the easiest board member, but I did what I could to push, prod and agitate for progressive reforms of the institutional infrastructure. I learned a great deal and tried to contribute. I wish that my frustration was more contained but, alas, that is from the fierce ‘urgency of now’ to see meaningful change that burns within my soul. My colleague Scott White, and others who are skilled in the art of patience and subtly, had a type of internal cooling system that I do not possess yet so admire.
My commitment to building the community and technical college system remains unmovable and I treasure the experience that such service gave me. While I often make loud public noises about many issues, the most productive work I’ve done centers around a number of important initiatives in higher education, notably the open course library initiative outlined here, and local tuition setting authority for our four year institutions.
We must invest in public education, it is the solution to our national challenges and the path forward. There is not an elected official from Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich to Jay Inslee and Rob McKenna–and myself–who has not uttered some version of those words. But when do we decide to live it, to believe it, to act upon it? When does it become our strategy forward and not merely a sales pitch?
On the 2012 campaign trail and in Olympia now there is substantive discussion about a major transportation package, a major jobs package, a major revenue package. But at the heart of our strategy should be a courageous next generation GI Bill for Education so that every person in our state can access the opportunity of life-long learning. Let’s double down on our higher education system. Let’s spend money. Let’s invest. Let’s be the state where the idea of world-class education is so much more than rhetoric, so much more accessible and viable than we allow today.
Renton Technical College students and hundreds of thousands more across our state: I hear the small, still voice of your lobbying and the thunderous impact is reaching Olympia.
We are so much more as a state and nation than what we’ve become.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Gratitude on Thanksgiving
It is standard fair for most of us to walk through the haze of holidays without making much effort to go deeper, to reflect harder, to connect with the more personally relevant meaning. The rampant commercialism of our society erodes our sense of spirituality with a reckless abandon and flippancy that is astonishing in scope.
This year I am grateful for the opportunity to enjoy the love and health of my wife and children, the wonder of community, the dignity of public service and so much more. Each and every day I strive to appreciate all that I have been given, all that I’ve been lucky enough to discover, all of the dreams that I’ve realized in this journey.
And yet, this year, in facing the loss of my friend Scott White it is difficult for those positive feelings to overcome the awful pain of deep sadness.
I find myself reflecting upon Scott’s death not only through the eyes of parent and friend but as a citizen of the world. It is not only that he was likely headed for much higher office, but that he himself had talents yet undiscovered to accomplish so much as a husband, father, public official and citizen.
Alison White, at Scott’s moving memorial service, spoke eloquently of the interplay between his public and private lives, the force of his personality and the intellectual gymnastics that he enjoyed about real issues. Her ability to lead 2,000 grieving people through a memorial service was beyond touching–it was a moment of such spiritual and emotional dignity and strength that I found myself unable to remain settled or contained in my resentment at why it was necessary. His death feels so bitter, so angry, as if God wanted to throw a fierce storm of rage at the world to remind everyone of the importance of feeling gratitude for what we have.
“Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues but the parent of all the others.” Cicero.
I feel gratitude this year for what I have, who I am and the values I strive to live everyday. My sensitivities and emotional connection to that appreciation is made starker, more tender, more nuanced and softer by the loss of a friend.
May your Thanksgiving bring you joy, love and the blessings of gratitude.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
An open letter to the good people of Wenatchee about Town Toyota Center, $42 million & supermajorities
Dear Friends,
The grand beauty of your community is one of the most glorious wonders of our state. I so enjoy our family’s frequent visits to your area for camping trips, amazing apples and much more. I also want to express my appreciation for the graciousness and personal friendships I enjoy with your legislative delegation. They are all generous and kind people who serve you well. I am writing today to ask to engage in a very difficult, uncomfortable conversation about our state’s budget challenges and the specific financial troubles faced by the Town Toyota Center.
I understand and appreciate the enormous stress that the financial struggles of the town center has caused. There is clearly a great deal of soul searching of your elected officials, community leaders and citizens. I do not pretend to know the nuance of how you are discussing the issue within the community itself. It is, unfortunately, a terribly unpleasant situation for your community that poses real risk for our state’s overall credit integrity.
I am struck by the pained embarrassment of this statement in the Wenatchee World: “The Town Toyota Center is viewed by many in the community as a white elephant, a financial noose around the neck of Wenatchee that is threatening to hang the community with its nearly $42 million construction debt.”
Still, in today’s global economic disequilibrium, a default by one community or project could easily have ‘collateral’ damage consequences for other communities and our state by making buyers less likely to purchase securities from Washington. For that reason alone we have a public obligation to look closely at this option.
While due to the Great Recession the state faces another $2 billion shortfall between revenues and spending needs, we must view your request for state assistance in the context of the ‘opportunity cost’ of those dollars. Fortunately, the state treasurer has designed a novel approach to use part of the reserve of a non-general operating budget fund from which he could loan the dollars, a prospect that makes this idea much more palatable.
I give you my personal and professional commitment, as a state legislator and not merely a representative of the 36th District, that I will study this issue intently and objectively as a member of the budget-writing Ways & Means Committee.
On a much deeper level my ethical concern around this issue is that I feel a major disconnect and inconsistency around the issue of I-1053 and supermajority requirements to take responsible financial decisions.
Here’s the question I openly ponder: Your legislators voted to require a 2/3 majority rule when the King County Council wanted to tax the people of King County for emergency transit funding–and yet now I am being asked to use simple majority in Olympia to approve emergency funding for a loan for your convention center that I suspect could not pass a supermajority vote of your own county council or the communities that make up the Toyota Town Center special taxing district.
I am struggling with the philosophical inconsistency and juxtaposition of these positions.
An editorial in the Wenatchee World made the following case in favor of I-1053, the Tim Eyman supermajority initiative:
“While it might ordinarily be preferable to let a majority of our elected representatives decide taxation issues, these times are unique and the course of decisions crucial. It is not anti-democratic to set a higher threshold for doing things we wish to be rare and difficult, such as imposing debt on your neighbor’s property, or amending the state Constitution or, intermittently, raising taxes.”
Since the view from your legislators is so firmly in favor of supermajority requirements for any material financial decision relative to revenues–even closing a tax exemption–I hope you can appreciate my question of why a 2/3 majority vote should not be required for an expenditure of tax dollars for your extraordinary needs. Or, perhaps more specifically if we were so inclined, perhaps we should consider requiring a supermajority vote of your local councils to approve repayment options.
If the expenditure of $42 million from a special account in Olympia required a 2/3 vote, 17 state senators could work behind the scenes to defeat the plan even before the ink was dry on the proposal.
Two of your legislators also supported a historic and arguably vitriolic provision requiring Seattle area taxpayers to be solely responsible–for the first time in state history–for any cost overruns of a state transportation project.
My obvious point is that the profound challenge of representative democracy itself is messy, complex and difficult. It is why we send real people to Olympia living real lives and don’t institute direct democracy for every single decision. We elect legislators from across our state to think, act, study and assess conditions as they change. To carry the title of “state” representative and senator, not merely representative from the 12th District or the 36th District.
We are one Washington, one state and one community. Those of us in Seattle are pained by this troubling and difficult crisis and we very much want to help you and our state avoid a $42 million jolt to your local taxpayers and default of municipal and state bond ratings and other important financial structures.
We take our fiduciary obligations extremely seriously as I know your local legislators do as well.
Perhaps, through this very difficult fiscal challenge you face, your legislators will also acknowledge that supermajority rules are undemocratic and inconsistent with good governance and that they institute tyranny of the minority. This condition hurts us all. It prevents good governance and flexible adaptation to unique and changing circumstances such as helping you through this serious crisis.
One Washington.
We are so much more than what we’ve become.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Rebuilding the fallen idol of initiatives
David Horsey, Seattlepi.com
A wonderful juxtaposition of energy, tension, excitement and populist suspicions fueled the establishment of Washington State in 1889. Our state’s progressive founders created a state constitution that fiercely protects our right to privacy, decentralizes power away from governors, empowers legislatures with control of the public dollar for public purposes and so much more. In 1914, for the first time voters exercised a new power granted the year before–borne of the progressive and populist era to give people a direct voice– of initiative. They immediately used it to institute prohibition.
Despite the rough start, in some idealistic and strangely related way the initiative as a tool of democracy is akin to the filibuster in the United States Senate: A powerful, end-of-the-line gesture to formally appeal to the majority of the institutional power establishment for redress of concerns and a direct voice.
In Olympia today the subtle, ongoing and real-time interplay between initiatives (and the threat or opportunity) and the legislature’s willingness to act–or failure to act–is a treasured part of the healthy tension that exists in state government between direct and representative democracy.
Today a major policy proposal may live, die or barely survive less because of its merits and more because of the ability of the advocates or detractors behind the policy to push or fight an initiative.
The stealth hand of initiatives as a prod to move the legislature forward is not inherently good or bad, effective or a distraction. It all depends upon the issue of the day. But it is a major factor and legislation introduced (or not) can no longer be seen in isolation absent an analysis of how the advocates prioritize the measure for a possible initiative.
By any standard and definition, progressive founders returning to today’s political world be enraged by the abuse of the initiative system by powerful interests on all sides. They would, I dare say, find in themselves the willingness to tackle the structural and systems issues raised by unlimited political spending.
In the past decade the use of initiatives by large interests–corporations, unions, narrow entities of all stripes–has grown to the point where it can only be described as without borders and boundaries.
In previous times what might be a mere amendment to a bill plodding through the committee process is now a full blown statewide initiative costing millions of dollars for and against and consuming our public dialogue.
We elect legislators to legislate. To study issues, research policies and advocate for our districts and state. By eviscerating the power of elected officials to govern we set in motion a method of inefficiency, narrow control and appeal to the lowest common denominator of our political dialogue. All fueled by unlimited money.
For the record, I readily acknowledge the obvious and understandable sense of frustration that major state interests and players from Costco to SEIU to progressive tax reform advocates to Kemper Freedman likely feel when they are unable to pass successful legislation for their causes. And yet it is the maddening sense of frustration that interests without resources feel equally painfully.
The legislature’s unwillingness to take what many might consider modest steps of reform in some categories fans the flames of organizations’ willingness to fund initiatives.
I in no way suggest here that initiatives or the threat of initiatives should not be a rich and vibrant part of our democracy. They often give the legislature a well-deserved kick in the tush to act. They are part of the soul of our democratic form of government and part of what make Washington special.
The question before us is how can we celebrate the ultimate authority residing with the people and not the government while protecting the core political and financial integrity of initiatives from dominance by narrow interests?
Our lack of any regulatory structures, financial controls, funding transparency or common sense guidelines has pushed the idol of initiatives–once justifiably revered for representing the dignity of the people’s true voice–from the idealistic pedestal of direct democracy.
It should surprise no one that when ‘progressive’ initiatives are suspended or modified by the legislature in difficult economic times or for other fiduciary reasons, the silence of the outcry from conservatives is deafening. When ‘conservative’ initiatives are suspended or modified by the legislature for the same reasons, progressives are equally still. The righteous indignation about the legislature ‘usurping the will of the people’ is, if nothing else, interchangeable and predictable. Of course, not only is it in our state constitution but it is our fiduciary obligation to manage the public interest across the range of initiative interests. No one takes a modification of an initiative lightly by any stretch of the imagination, but in a real world where it is amplified by tens of millions in special interest money it’s hard to consider an initiative vote righteously beyond reproach.
The legislature’s role in modifying, suspending or otherwise changing initiatives after two years–actually reading the fine print and living with the implications– is a vital element of our state constitution and representative democracy.
We must reflect deeply upon the fact that our initiative process once viewed as an innocent child of democracy–a light among the states in giving the people direct access to direct democracy not to be filtered by representative democracy–has been corrupted by obscene amounts of money.
It’s time for initiative reform.
We are so much more than what we’ve become.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
The letter sent last week by 115 mayors to Governor Gregoire calling for a serious reexamination of the proposed budget cuts to local governments is one more reminder of the tone of the Nov. 28 special legislative session. It is, as much as any Occupy Wall Street chant, a wake up call by those who depend upon the state’s taxing authority. While I very much appreciate the public outreach and unity among the mayors, I am in a reflective mood as to how the mayors will organize to influence the legislators representing their own communities.
Here’s the real deal question: Will the advocacy that this letter represents explore bold, systems solutions or retreat into a predictable argument that city and state revenue sharing is sacred and simply must not be touched? I sincerely hope it is the former. I am not, I might add, in any way unsympathetic with the mayors’ plea, I am merely pondering how substantially we have distributed taxing authority already that was not recognized in the letter.
My point, as much as anything, is that the relationship itself must in fact be very much on the table. Of course the mayors are troubled by a proposed reduction in revenue sharing from the state treasury to their cities. Everyone is feeling the pain of declining revenues. But isn’t this crisis actually the ideal time to examine the relationship itself with courageous honesty?
I would argue that our current construct of the money flow from Olympia to counties to cities–as well as hundreds of special purpose taxing districts–cries out for systemwide reexamination.
The mayors’ letter is focused tactically on revenue sharing of liquor dollars. But is it not also appropriate to use this opportunity to engage the mayors and ask the larger ‘systems’ issues: What level of government is most suited to perform what service? What amount of local taxing authority for current and future service needs is warranted in today’s world? How has our state changed in 70 years and is our current construct of revenue sharing working? Are the special purpose districts we have collectively created taking the right amount of resources from general city and county governments? I would argue that we have not conducted this examination sufficiently given today’s financial crisis.
There is a great deal of serious public policy work being conducted–and major questions being asked–about how state government can reexamine its core constitutional task of granting taxing authority in the long-term without it being seen simply as a (potential) short-term cost-cutting strategy.
Here is a partial list of special purpose districts–many with independent taxing authority. The question is not necessarily whether each district works or does not work; that’s part of it. The bolder question is can we better organize these districts in such a fashion as to allow counties and cities to more effectively control their taxpayers’ resources in less of a ‘silo’ fashion than we see today? These districts make ‘silo’ thinking and taxing inevitable. And it is inherently inefficient. There is great value and purpose in many of these districts and I have no quarrel with any in particular.
My core observation is that we probably could not track the overall flow of money very efficiently if we tried.
District (year of creation)
Education Districts (1889)
Irrigation Districts (1890)
Diking Districts (1895)
Drainage Districts (1895)
Joint School Districts (1897)
Metropolitan Park Districts (1907)
Diking & Drainage Districts in Two or More Counties (Intercounty Diking and Drainage Districts) 1909
Port Districts (1911)
Diking, Drainage, Sewerage Improvement Districts 1913 Act, Funding methods revised by Diking, Drainage, and Sewerage Improvement Districts – 1967 Act
Flood Control by Counties Jointly (1913)
Water Districts (1913)
Drainage Improvement Districts (1917)
Ferry Districts (1917)
Weed Districts (1921)
Reclamation Districts of One Million Acres (1927)
Public Utility Districts (1931)
Fire Protection Districts (1933)
Regional Library Districts (1935)
Flood Control Districts (1937)
Conservation Districts (1939)
Public Housing Authorities (1941)
Sewer Districts (1941)
Reclamation and Irrigation Districts in Reclamation Areas (1943)
Airport Districts–County (1945)
Health Districts (1945)
Public Hospital Districts (1945)
Cemetery Districts (1947)
Inter-county Rural Library Districts (1947)
Boards of Joint Control (Irrigation) (1949)
Air Pollution Control Authorities (1957)
Metropolitan Municipal Corporations (1957)
Mosquito Control Districts (1957)
Park & Recreation Districts (1957)
Inter-County Regular Weed Districts (1959)
Flood Control Zone Districts (1961)
Irrigation and Rehabilitation Districts (1961)
Parks & Recreation Service Areas (1963)
Water-Sewer Districts (1971)
Television Reception Improvement Districts (1971)
County Public Transportation Authority (1974)
Public Transportation Benefit Areas (1975)
Unincorporated Transportation Benefit Areas (1975)
Emergency Medical Service Districts (1979)
Joint Park and Recreation Districts (1979)
Joint city-county Housing Authorities (1980)
Operating Agencies (Electricity Generation, cities and PUD) (1981)
Cultural Arts, Stadium and Convention Districts (1982)
Island Library District (1982)
Solid Waste Disposal Districts (1982)
County Rail Districts (1983)
Legal Authorities Hydroelectric (1983)
Roads and Bridges Service Districts (1983)
Transportation Benefits District (1989)
Regional Transit Authorities (1992)
Rural Public Hospital Districts (1992)
Rural Partial Library Districts (1993)
Library Capital Facility Areas (1995)
Public Stadium Authorities (1997)
Library Capital Facility Areas (1995)
Public Stadium Authorities (1997)
Public Facilities Districts–Cities (1999)
City Transportation Authority–Monorail (2002)
County Ferry District-Passenger Only (2003)
Regional Fire Protection Service Authorities (2004)
Public Hospital Capital Facility Areas (2009)
Community Facilities Districts (2010)
And so on, and so on.
We are a state radically addicted to decentralization on nearly every level. With nine statewide elected officials alone, it starts from the top of our constitutional structure. But at some point–perhaps now–one has to question whether our state’s long held comfort with decentralization of local taxing authority has actually led to better quality services at a lower price.
The central systems question we face is whether the dollars that (many not all) of these special purpose districts can raise are by their nature central to local and county governments. Why shouldn’t the cities and counties themselves be stronger voices for how these resources are allocated? Why shouldn’t city and county authorities–the main elected officials with relationships with citizens– have greater accountability and authority over the many taxing districts that dot their horizons?
The letter sent by 115 mayors is an important part of the dialogue about the depth, history and richness of the relationship between state government and cities. Their focus on liquor sales revenue sharing is understandable and appropriate.
But it is far from the full story.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Beginning of the end for $100 college textbooks: Legislature, colleges, Gates Foundation partner
elmhurst.edu
Two and a half years ago I worked night and day during my first legislative session to secure $1.2 million in the state budget for a comprehensive investment in open courseware, open libraries and technology at our community and technical colleges. Those dollars have been translated into programs that save students millions while helping, faculty, administrators and taxpayers. Here’s a blog post about the initial investment:
Today the following statement was released by the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, the Gates Foundation and my office.
OPEN COURSE LIBRARY LAUNCH MARKS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF $100-PLUS TEXTBOOKS
OLYMPIA, Wash. – Last fall, teams of faculty, instructional designers, and librarians set out to arm the 81 highest-enrolled community and technical college courses with high-quality, low-cost educational materials that will cost students no more than $30 per class per term.
Today [Monday, Oct. 31] during a telephone press conference, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) announced the launch of the Open Course Library (OCL), rolling out expertly-developed materials for the first 42 of 81 courses likely to dramatically reduce textbook costs for students in the state and nation.
The customizable materials — including textbooks, syllabi, course activities, readings, assessments — will be freely available online under an open license for use by the state’s 34 public community and technical colleges, four-year colleges and universities, and anyone else in the world.
The combined 81 courses represent more than 410,000 class enrollments across the state’s public community and technical college system. If all the colleges in the system adopted the courses, potential textbook savings to students could amount to $41 million annually.
Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Washington State Legislature, the OCL aims to not only lower textbook costs, but to improve college completion rates, which ultimately leads to better job prospects.
“For employers, it’s about up-skilling the labor force,” said Shaunta Hyde, State Board member and director of Global Aviation Policy for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “Open Educational Resources will help people earn industry-recognized degrees and credentials more quickly at lower cost. Evidence shows the burden of high college expenses can impact student success and degree completion. So the Open Course Library is good for business and leads to an improved employment outlook for students.”
According to the Student Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), the program is already expected to pay for itself within one year. “The 42 faulty who developed these courses and their departments will save students an estimated $1.26 million during the 2011-2012 school year alone,” said Nicole Allen, Textbook Advocate for the Student PIRGs. The first wave of courses cost $1.18 million to create. “Imagine the savings with the materials now available to the rest of the world.”
Each course has been peer-reviewed and checked by a team that includes accessibility and global education experts. Use of these materials is not mandated, but some faculty and departments with early access to the materials are now moving to adopt Open Course Library courses.
This fall, the mathematics department at Green River Community College in Auburn, Wash. began using the Calculus I course in place of an expensive, traditional textbook.
“I supported and promoted my division’s adoption of the text by David Lippman and Melonie Rasmussen primarily because it is, in my opinion, the best pre-calculus text available. Even those in the division who might disagree, ranked it no lower than second,” said Michael Kenyon, the department’s coordinator. “Our two main criteria for choosing textbooks are quality and price. And there’s no contest on price. The authors have simply written a better book at a much better price.
“It’s not often that government gets this right,” said Rep. Reuven Carlyle, Washington State 36th District (D-Seattle) and champion of open education resources. “This is a significant state investment in this era of massive budget cuts. We had little choice but to seize the opportunity of this crisis to challenge the status quo of the old-style cost model in both K-12 and higher education.”
Another 39 courses will be developed in 2012 and released in early 2013.
“The public speaking class with Dr. Phil Venditti used the Open Course Library. It was the least expensive and most beneficial course I have taken, since the course materials cost us no more than $30 out of pocket,” said Lindsey Cassels, Clover Park Technical College medical esthetics student. “It is outrageous for students to pay $200 or more per textbook. In a four-quarter program, having to spend nearly $3,000 per year just on textbooks is enough to make students drop out of college.”
Want to learn more?
Open Course Library http://opencourselibrary.org
Open Course Library FAQs http://www.opencourselibrary.org/about/faq
Student Public Interest Research Groups http://www.studentpirgs.org/textbooks
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges http://sbctc.edu/
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation http://www.gatesfoundation.org/postsecondaryeducation/Pages/default.aspx
Rep. Reuven Carlyle: http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/Pages/carlyle.aspx
It is my full intention to use this successful launch to move forward with Open Educational Resources throughout Washington State. My hope and expectation is that other states will rapidly embrace this strategy.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Limit campaign contributions and pay school boards: Two small steps forward in 2012
Four years ago a strong group of candidates with compelling financial, education and management experience ran for the Seattle School Board. As those board members face voters, many in Seattle are critical of the board’s performance in light of the previous controversial superintendent, financial scandal and underwhelming audits. And yet large numbers of citizens focus on the district’s many legitimate improvements and the impressive growth in the number of families signing up for the Seattle Public School District.
This is, of course, the essence of representative democracy and the voter’s will ultimately make their choices known.
For Seattle’s board, the process of constantly evolving and learning how to be an effective board in terms of fiduciary oversight of the superintendent and bureaucracy, ownership of key public policy issues and aggressive community outreach has been a constant journey. But the group has generally, in my view, performed with a degree of transparency and a willingness to learn and grow with student achievement at the core. I feel that overall the board has been much more united and strategic than previous single-issue boards with narrow agendas.
Recruiting and retaining the highest quality individuals to serve on an elected school board–and to do so effectively as professional, full-time volunteers–is vital to our 47,000 students, the billions in tax dollars they manage and our community at large.
Marian Wright Edelman, founder of Children’s Defense Fund, recently made a powerful speech in which she said, “the single most important public office in our nation is the school board.”
It is exactly because I share the conviction that public policy and political engagement in education must merge that I plan to introduce two modest bills in 2012 that I hope will contribute in a small way to improving school boards.
(For the record, most of my time is, of course, spent as a member of the Ways & Means Committee fighting tooth and nail for the public resources to empower our state’s “paramount duty” to educate young people). Personally as a legislator I rarely find much interest in ‘governance’ battles or arguing over which agency should control what type of program. In this case, however, I think some structural improvements make sense. Ninety-nine percent of my time is focused on the state budget. Still, the challenge of governing in today’s environment does not take other, smaller issues off the table.
First, I am troubled that, to date, our state has not chosen to include school board races in our current campaign financing limits. It is my intention to introduce legislation to require that campaigns for school board races face a limit equalling legislative levels–currently $800 per person per election–beginning next year. Specifically, this means that a candidate could raise $800 per donor in each of the primary and general elections for a total of $1,600 per person in any one full cycle. Today there is no such limit. This is not a reflection on any one race this year or in the past. It’s a systematic structural issue that should be addressed.
Second, I have announced previously that I believe school districts should have the local option of deciding whether their local board directors should be paid. I plan to introduce a bill to allow major local districts to pay directors a salary of up to that of a state legislator. Given that these individuals have fiduciary oversight of hundreds of millions or billions of operating and capital budget dollars, we should allow local communities the opportunity in a permissive model to pay directors for their work. Many of the state’s 147 legislators find it necessary to work full time representing their 140,000 constituents. Many others, myself included, continue to work professionally at or near full time. For school board members in a large district it’s difficult for me to see how we attract anyone who has an obligation to feed a family by paying effectively nothing. The current base salary for a legislator is $42,106. A local district should have a right to allow that level of payment or less.
It’s important to note that I fully realize there is a closely nit subculture of school board directors. They take great pride in being volunteer community leaders and I respect that group ethic. I am not arguing that they are wrong by any stretch of the imagination. School board membership is part of our national ethic. I am merely arguing that such a position may not be 100% right for every community. Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane and other districts are different than Tumwater, Cle Ellum and Orting. Local choices matter. Today’s state law does not allow the option.
A vast majority of my time, energy and effort in education revolves around four core strategies: 1) secure full funding for public education, 2) empower principals with greater authority, accountability and training to exercise effective leadership, 3) strengthen the role, value, support, expectations and accountability of teachers, 4) engage parents in the hard work of educating their kids in a hands-on way in partnership with schools.
These two bills are modest in scope and do not by themselves pretend to be more than they are. While these are certainly not the most pressing ‘system’ issues, and it does not exactly require us to engage in a courageous conversation about our state’s future, I do feel an obligation to take these two steps forward.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
(Disclosure: I work extremely hard to avoid any campaign-related dialogue on this blog so as to maintain the direct link the site enjoys from my official legislative site. In this case, however, I feel an obligation to transparency to disclose that I have publicly endorsed Sherry Carr, Peter Maier and Steve Sundquist in their re-election campaigns. I have not made a formal endorsement in District 3).
An open letter to my treasured friend Scott White
My dear friend:
There are no words to express the sense of loss that Wendy, the children and I feel at your stunning death. There are no routine press statements or common political refrains that can touch the soul of how I feel. I mourn not as your colleague in the state legislature but as a husband and father of young children.
There are no answers or explanations. There is only the dark chill of pain that runs through my heart as I reflect upon the journey faced by your wonderful wife, children and family during this most unfathomable time.
In 2008 you and I would call, text and email everyday as we both struggled in our first political campaigns. You were the consummate insider and professional with vast experience in both the policy and political aspects of running for office. I was so impressed and even at times intimidated with the depth of your political acumen. Nearly everyday we would do so much more than compare notes and strategize operationally, we would give each other the deeply personal moral support that a first-time candidate needs in a titanic battle.
We arrived in Olympia together, part of an unusually united and passionate “class of 2008,” and began our journey of public life with awe and appreciation for the opportunity to serve. You always showed so much respect for the institution of public service itself.
You had the fine tuned skill of a professional public servant not merely because of your vast experience in public life at a young age but because of your deep conviction to stand for the people’s right to good government.
You were the best of the noble ideal and dignity of community service.
As the headlines fade and the numbness subsides, I pray that you will know that your family, friends and community treasured the opportunity to know and love you.
You will not be forgotten.
Your family is not alone.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
