LibertyLive Blog

Bonney Lake citizens defeat tax measure

Wed, 22 May 2013 15:15:00 PDT

You probably can’t get 80% of the citizens in Bonney Lake to agree the sky is blue, but John Millan and Shawnta Mulligan convinced about that percentage of voters to reject a recent tax measure.

The Bonney Lake city council was determined to form a new Municipal Parks District, thereby forcing citizens to pay a new tax. John and Shawnta argued that the city already collected enough property tax to pay for parks, and the city’s proposal would tax people twice for the same purpose.

The city council took the idea to the voters and John and Shawnta--along with a group they organized--stood against the city council’s growing appetite for new taxes.

The city’s strategy was to run the tax measure during a special election this past April. They hoped that a small number of their supporters could have easily swayed the election outcome because the voter turnout during special elections is historically very low.

However, John and Shawnta made it their mission to tell the voters what was at stake in this election. They wanted people to know that if approved, this taxing district would be in place forever, and the tax ceiling was much higher than the city was communicating.

John and Shawnta contacted the Freedom Foundation for help when they first began this project. John said, “Shawnta and I knew that it was time to take action, and the first thing we decided was that we needed to contact Glen and Scott at the Freedom Foundation just to listen to what they’ve seen from from other ballot measures and …. what works and doesn’t work.”

They created a website, and used social media to communicate with citizens in Bonney Lake. They took to the streets and organized sign-waving rallies to build awareness of their issue.

Because of what they did, the tax measure was defeated by 79.5%, which is a testament to the effectiveness of their campaign.

Even more encouraging, is that two members of their group have now decided to run for public office, and are running for positions on the city council.

We help citizen activists all over Washington state to become more effective. If you have an issue you’re working on, and would like help, please contact us here at the Freedom Foundation.

Education Options

Tue, 21 May 2013 17:10:00 PDT

Today, Rep. Liz Pike introduced House Bill 2063, which establishes a scholarship tax credit that will make it possible for families to consider a wider range of educational options for their children.

Currently in Washington, one in fifteen students is enrolled in a private education program. Nearly all of those selecting private education are wealthy; specialized education is not readily available to the poor.

Twelve states have addressed this inequity by creating a tax incentive for investments in scholarships for those without the means to afford such schools, and approximately 130,000 children are able to access the school they want as a result. Rep. Pike's proposed bill would implement this strategy in Washington state.

Independent schools in Washington have capacity for thousands of additional students, yet only one third of those who apply for need-based scholarships receive them. Enabling low-income students to select education outside of the public system would not only give parents and students more options, but it would also free state resources for education and other state spending priorities. Each student transferring to an approved provider saves the state’s usual expenditure of $6,300. A net savings of $20-$60 million is possible in the 2013-2015 budget. Long term savings are measured in hundreds of millions.

What does the bill do?

1. Permits a 100% Business and Occupation tax credit for donations to approved scholarship-granting charities

2. Places a $100 million cap on tax credits. This cap can grow based upon inflation and demand for the credit.

3. Requires that scholarships awarded be:

Only available to students at or below 225% of the federal poverty guidelines,
Only available to students formerly enrolled in public school for the first two years, with a growing portion permitted from all each year thereafter,
$5,000 for basic education and $10,350 for special education,
Used at state-approved private school, and
Not used to benefit the children of the donor.

What benefits would the bill have for Washington's families?

1. Creates equity

Wealthy families already have school choice, but low-income families don’t. Wealthy families can afford to live in districts with high-performing schools or send their children to independent schools. Low-income families generally only have one choice: the local assigned government school. Students in low-income districts perform worse on the state assessment than students in higher-income districts. This bill would give students in these low-income districts the same opportunity that wealthy families already enjoy: the option to attend the school best suited for their needs and success.

2. Improves student performance

Numerous randomized-controlled studies have demonstrated that students in choice programs have higher academic performance. Other improved measures of performance include higher graduation rates, Increased college enrollment, and increased civic-mindedness

3. Promotes Fiscal responsibility

The reduction in state expenditures is greater than the reduction in state tax revenue.

4. Accommodates diversity of educational needs

The act empowers low-income families to choose the education that best meets their kids’ individual needs.

We shouldn’t expect any one school to be able to meet all the diverse needs of all the students living in a given geographic area. This bill is step away from a top-down, one-size-fits-some approach and moves toward an education system that addresses the individual needs of each student.

Some examples of educational needs:

Students with disabilities
Victims of bullying
Those with learning styles better served with differing teaching approaches
Focus on arts, music, etc.
Differing needs for discipline, play, exploratory learning, etc.
Enrichment programs
Academic accelleration

5. Enhances school responsiveness

When families have alternatives, the schools must be responsive to their needs or parents can vote with their feet.

6. It's constitutional

Scholarship tax credit programs are on firm constitutional ground. These programs have withstood every single legal challenge to date at both the state and federal levels.

Prayer in the Public Square

Mon, 20 May 2013 13:31:00 PDT

You may have heard that there's been something of a ruckus recently about local governments allowing prayers before their meetings. For some communities it has long been a tradition for a citizen or clergy member to offer an invocation before a meeting of elected officials, while others are just now considering this issue. But is it constitutional for a local government body to plan for prayers to take place before their meetings?

Today the U.S. Supreme Court announced that for the first time in thirty years it would consider a constitutional challenge to the practice of praying in relation to a meeting of a government body.

In Town of Greece v. Galloway, two citizens have argued that the First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for their local legislative body to allow citizens to offer invocations before the legislative meetings because most of those who volunteered were Christians. For more than a decade the town's policy was to allow any citizen to volunteer to offer an invocation, and the town did not discriminate in favor of any particular religious tradition. Invocations had actually been offered by Jews, Baha'i, and a Wiccan priestess, and even atheists were welcome to volunteer to offer a non-religious thought prior to the town board's meeting. In fact, the town never turned down any person who asked for a turn playing this role. Nonetheless, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers several states on the East Coast, struck down the town's policy because (in the court's opinion) a reasonable observer might conclude that the town favored certain religious beliefs over others.

The Second Circuit's outcome was really surprising because in 1983's Marsh v. Chambers the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the longstanding practice of the Nebraska state legislature opening its sessions with prayers offered by a Presbyterian minister who was being paid with public funds. Given that those offering invocations in the town of Greece were not receiving any public funds, and especially given the fact that any citizens who wished was free to sign up to offer a prayer consistent with their own faith tradition, it seems like the policy at issue in this case should be far less constitutionally "offensive" than the policy the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Marsh.

It will be very interesting to see how the Court comes down on this issue. For the past several decades the Court's application of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses has been a trainwreck. The Free Exercise Clause has been watered-down to the point at which it is nearly useless to protect people of faith against governmental restrictions on their religious practice. The dysfunction surrounding the Court's treatment of the Establishment Clause was brough into high relief by a matched pair of 2005 decisions in which the Court decided that it is perfectly constitutional to post the Ten Commandments on public property... unless, of course, it isn't.

There has been a lot of change on the Court since then, but in recent years they have dealt with relatively few religion cases. This makes it especially difficult to predict what direction the new justices (Alito, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Chief Justice Roberts) might lean, and specifically whether they will be able to restore some clarity and predictability to how courts must apply the Religion Clauses. We will be watching this case closely and will strive to help our readers make sense of whatever the justices ultimately say about this case - and what that means for your religious liberty.

Teacher's Union in Trouble With... Itself

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:19:00 PDT

Trouble in union paradise? Apparently. In a somewhat ironic turn of events, the staff organization of the Washington Education Association, WEASO, is claiming that the state teacher’s union is violating its collective bargaining agreement with its administrative employees.

In a flyer WEASO has been distributing to WEA executives, the employees allege that the union is eliminating staff to decrease costs:

"Staffing has decreased significantly over the past 4 years and on August 30, 2013, an additional 27 staff members will retire. WEASO maintains that these losses cripples the organization's ability to continue its necessary work. WEA does not plan to fill those positions with permanent employees, which is a violation of the negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement. For the WEASO, this understaffing and the use of consultants and temporary hires do not make WEA stronger."

The flyer also alleges that the WEA has plenty of money to spare for staffing. They argue that “stock piling millions in reserves at the expense of providing adequate staffing to meet the needs of members will not strengthen WEA.”

True to union form, things have been getting personal. One WEA employee commented on WEASO’s Facebook page that the cuts were “Jokamoto’s version of the sequester,” referring to WEA’s Executive Director, John Okamoto.

Perhaps the problem is indeed those fat-cat union executives. After all, Okamoto receives an ample six-figure salary: $185,000 in 2010, according to the WEA’s IRS filings, plus another $80 thousand in “other compensation.” In fact, nearly all of WEA’s top staff bring home six-figures.

Sounds like it’s time to hit the picket lines. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Learn More at Principles to Action

Join us at our upcoming Principles to Action Conference where we'll discuss labor reform from Wisconsin, to Michigan, to Washington.

Tacoma Convention Center
1500 Broadway St.
Tacoma, WA 98402

Saturday, June 15
9:00 am to 3:00 pm

Hear from national experts
Meet pro-freedom elected officials
Learn new strategies and tactics to take your citizenship to the next level.

Click here to learn more and to register.

Right-to-work comes to Washington?

Thu, 16 May 2013 17:08:00 PDT

Last week, Sen. Michael Baumgartner (R-Spokane) introduced a bill that has the potential to make Washington the 25^th right-to-work state (SB 5935). “Right-to-work” means that union membership would no longer be a condition of employment in either private or public workplaces.

On the surface, it might seem like the bill doesn’t do that much. In reality, right-to-work be just the economic boost Washington needs. Here's a snapshot of what the bill could provide:

A fairer environment for Washington workers

Sen. Michael
Baumgartner
(R) Spokane

Under current state law, many workers are required to pay hefty union dues in order to work at their job, even if they would rather not be represented by the union. It is true that unions use a portion of that money on activities which benefit union workers, such as bargaining with the employer (often a public agency) for increased pay or benefits. However, unions spend significant sums of money on political contributions and other activities. Notably, almost all union political spending goes to support Democratic candidates despite the fact that around one-third of union members are Republicans.

Washington has taken steps in the past to try and limit unions’ ability to force workers to fund political lobbying with which they disagree. Nevertheless, unions are generally able to get around those protections as long as they can forcibly collect dues.

Baumgartner’s bill would promote fairness over force by placing the decision in workers’ hands. All workers would be able to choose for themselves whether union membership is right for them and, consequently, whether to pay dues.

More jobs & income

Reforming Washington’s current policy of forced unionism would bring Washington up to speed with right-to-work states that have growing economies.

As certain states have adopted right-to-work policies, they have seen direct economic benefits for their citizens. Not only did these states experience more product growth overall, but they also boasted increases in personal income and in employment. Americans in right-to-work states enjoy more opportunity to earn higher wages, and there are more jobs available for them to choose from. And the rest of the country is starting to notice. How do we know? Perhaps the most telling fact is the number of Americans voting with their feet.

According to economist Richard Vedder, the number of Americans moving from union-shop states to right-to-work states is “astonishing.” In one study, Vedder pointed out that,

“Census Bureau population estimate data show that more than 4.7 million Americans moved from the non-right-to-work states to right-to-work states from April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2008—on average more than one person every single minute of that eight years… this immense human movement strongly suggests that job conscious Americans prefer areas that allow more individual employment liberty than ones that do not.”

This phenomenon is not limited to individuals, either. One of the reasons Baumgartner reportedly introduced the bill was to help keep Boeing from moving still more aerospace jobs and production to right-to-work states like South Carolina.

It is important to note that, as written, Baumgartner’s bill would only implement right-to-work if the cost of worker’s compensation insurance to businesses continues to increase. Washington currently has one of the most expensive worker’s comp systems in the country, which gives businesses yet another reason to relocate.

Thus, the bill draws attention to two problems and presents lawmakers with a choice. Washington businesses are currently hampered by both unions and high worker’s comp costs; pick which problem to address. Reforms in both areas would have a positive impact on Washington, and Baumgartner deserves a lot of credit for calling attention to the issues.

Learn More at Principles to Action

Join us at our upcoming Principles to Action Conference where we'll discuss labor reform from Wisconsin, to Michigan, to Washington.

Tacoma Convention Center
1500 Broadway St.
Tacoma, WA 98402

Saturday, June 15
9:00 am to 3:00 pm

Hear from national experts
Meet pro-freedom elected officials
Learn new strategies and tactics to take your citizenship to the next level.

Click here to learn more and to register.

Has the IRS been watching the Freedom Foundation?

Thu, 16 May 2013 16:22:00 PDT

In light of the IRS's obsession with conservative groups, we had to know: Has the IRS been watching the Freedom Foundation?

The short answer: Yes.

After reviewing our website traffic since the beginning of last year, here’s who showed up among our visitors:

The IRS
The White House, which viewed our post on "Transparency in Government"
The Department of Justice
The FBI
Homeland Security

State government has been all over our site, too, racking up well over 2,000 visits. That’s what we want, of course, since we offer a lot of resources to state and local policymakers.

One of the biggest reminders we can give them - and ourselves - is that as government gets bigger, inidividuals and their rights matter less. At the Freedom Foundation, we envision Washington as a place where people are free to speak, assemble, worship, and work as they please. Every day, we're empowering more and more citizens and lawmakers with the resources they need to protect those individual rights and keep government's power in check.

Whether they love it or hate it, if the government is spending so much time reading what we have to say, it means we must be doing something right. As Winston Churchill once said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

Run for School Board; Change the Future

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:58:00 PDT

By 4:00 on Friday the 17^th, hundreds of school board positions will be decided simply because people filed for that office and were unopposed. Often, the special interests like public employee unions have the most to gain, and they make certain to try to capture those seats.

The Freedom Foundation has assembled a list of every local government position in the state, and when those seats are on the ballot. Your county elections department can also tell you what school district you are in, which seats are open for filing, and how to file for office.

School board is not just for parents. The single most important task of the school board is to decide how to spend levy funds, and all taxpayers have an interest in effective uses of those funds.

What Does School Board Do?

It is a myth that all the important decisions about schools are made in Olympia and Washington DC. Our state is a very strong local control state. Local school boards decide who will be hired, how they will be deployed and removed, what programmatic priorities will be funded, what curriculum is used, how students advance, how the schedule is organized, what facilities are needed, what options will be offered, and how the community is treated.

Three critical decisions are made by school boards on a regular basis:

One: the local tax levy request and intended use.

Two: the budget for the school.

Three: the collective bargaining agreement.

In addition to these, school directors have the final say, subject to some state minimum requirements, over

the calendar, the length of the school day and the number of days in the school year
staff evaluations and whether to make staff decisions based on employee effectiveness
the criteria for “just cause” to intervene to help staff improve or move out of the classroom
the salary and benefits of employees as well as the use of incentives like extra compensation or leave time
curricula, assessments and the use of data
the number and kinds of schools, programs and options available to families
the academic requirements for sports, activities, grade advancement and graduation
the priorities for enhanced services like supplemental learning opportunities or special content
the placement, duties and service expectations of employees

BIGGEST MISTAKE SCHOOL BOARDS OFTEN MAKE

Letting the collective bargaining agreement with employees be dominated by employees’ interests rather than the interests of students and families. Several examples, evident in most union contracts follow.

“TRI” or levy-funded wage bonuses

The practice of offering levy-funded wage bonuses is pervasive and unsustainable. Each year, hundreds of millions of levy dollars are used in this way. Each dollar shifted from services to wage enhancements cannibalizes your school and gives the taxpayer less service for more cost. The various levy-funded wage enhancements are the primary objective of the union negotiators, but unless citizens are getting more services, these concessions are generally against the interests of students, families and taxpayers.

If a district is going to use levies for higher wages, then consider whether the “time” you buy is actually for documented services or district-directed activities. Most contracts require nothing more than a signature for these pay bonuses.

Other unproductive levy-funded wage bonuses

I have seen school boards give levy-funded bonuses for teachers who have larger class sizes, who are older than their peers, who carry out duties which are typically within the professional responsibility of an employee, and for certificate-required professional development. Some districts pour levy funds into the employee benefit pool.

Personal leave

The state funds approximately five substitute days per teacher per year, and this probably covers sick leave. Some districts fund a number of “personal leave” days and then let the employee cash them out at 1/180th of their annual salary if they are unused. This is a levy-funded expense.

Convenient calendar for employees

Often the bargaining agreement defines key elements of the calendar like a shorter school year or the addition of partial school days. Furloughs which punish students and families rather than pass along state-adopted salary reduction are also typically adopted by school boards in the contract.

Making decisions based upon seniority rather than management or effectiveness

The collective bargaining agreement is where the Directors determine that longevity will be the dominant factor regarding placement, retention, assignments and bonuses. Tacoma SD attempted to adjust this in its bargaining process.

Staff evaluation

Bargaining agreements are where Directors solidify whether or not student learning will not be a factor of employee evaluations. Seattle SD attempted to adjust this in its bargaining process. Most districts evaluate on factors other than effectiveness. Some contracts actually prohibit evaluating educators on how well they inspire student learning.

Employee discipline

State law does not define what counts as “cause” for taking adverse actions. The contract could legitimately define the grey areas of “cause.” For example, a teacher with undeniable evidence of bullying students doesn’t break the law, but the contract could acknowledge that such actions will be considered “cause” for contract non-renewal.

Management rights

Most contracts have a “management rights” section, and this could be enhanced to clearly define the discretion and support the district will have for professional managers who are best equipped to make decisions.

Forced union dues or fees

School boards are the ones who decide whether or not employees will be forced to pay the union as a condition of employment. Unions admit overcharging for workplace representation, and they use the excess on electioneering, marketing and other pursuits. The local union which must earn employee support will be truer to the intent of collective bargaining principles and less extreme.

. . . . . . . . .

Time to file for elected office

Wed, 15 May 2013 09:24:00 PDT

Filing week has arrived, so if you, or anyone you know, is interested in running for public office, get on over to the auditor’s office and file your candidacy.

Key Dates
May 13 Filing Week Begins
May 17 Candidate filing ends
May 20 Last day for candidates to withdraw
May 24 Last day to submit photos and statements for voter’s pamphlet

[click here to see the entire Secretary of State’s Calendar]

You can file online with the Secretary of State.

[click here to jump to the Secretary of State’s online filing page]

Do you need to know what offices you may be eligible to run for? We have compiled a database of all the local elected officials in Washington.

[click here to jump to our elected officials research page]

Remember to file with the Public Disclosure Commission.

[click here for the PDC resources]

UW Students Asked to Pay for Faculty Raises

Mon, 13 May 2013 09:57:00 PDT

The Seattle Times reported last Thursday that a student committee at the University of Washington has proposed a three-percent tuition increase to fund faculty raises. They intend for their recommendation to melt the wage freeze that has been in effect for the past four years.

The proposal stems from a concern that UW could lose talented faculty if the university doesn’t offer more competitive wages. In the absence of increased funding from the state legislature, this student committee is looking to the other primary revenue source: the students themselves.

It’s true that research universities like UW need top-notch faculty who can be a source of credibility, as well as pride, for the institution. For students, the question isn’t whether these faculty members are worth keeping around. Many students obviously benefit from the faculty’s expertise. What should concern students, though, is the student committee’s attempt to force an additional cost on them.

About half of UW students are already taking on thousands in student loan debt. Their tuition dollars are already paying for far more than the core costs of education (i.e., administrative costs, campus structures, student recreational and activities fees, etc.). Some students may not be able to afford another tuition increase, however small it might be. Others may not actually take classes from the faculty who receive raises – if indeed UW doesn’t offer equal raises across the board. Those students may not want to pay for raises of faculty members whose expertise they don’t directly benefit from.

Have UW professors really fallen on such hard times that it’s justifiable to ask students to fund their raises? Just last month, The Seattle Times cited a survey from the American Association of University Professors, which revealed that, on average, a full professor at UW makes $124,254 annually. UW professors are the highest-paid in the state and, out of 442 public universities, UW’s salaries rank 48^th. That’s not too shabby. In fact, if the UW campus were a reflection of our economy, that would make professors the “one-percent.”

Furthermore, as it turns out, the term “wage freeze” has been misleading. According to Seattle Times reporter Katherine Long, “Despite a four-year wage freeze, the average salary has grown slightly because professors receive step increases whenever a job change or rank moves them to a higher step on the pay scale.” These increases may not have been substantial or widespread, but the point is that opportunities to earn more exist at UW even with a “wage freeze.”

Now think about the reality students face. Already strapped for cash and facing a bleak job market, they can only dream of a $124,254 salary and the job security or advancement opportunities many professors enjoy. The most obvious solution seems be to more funding from the state legislature. But that wouldn’t necessarily be fair to students either.

You see, in recent years, the state legislature has been redirecting much more funding to state need grants, which enable low-income students and families to afford higher education. Because the state legislature has limited funds, it must prioritize its spending. The reality of those decisions is that trade-offs must be made; one thing will have to be given up in order to obtain something else. So the state legislature could provide more funding to increase faculty wages. Just keep in mind that, if this is a solution you support, UW’s full professors may make closer to $150,000, but somewhere in the state there may also be a student who didn’t receive the state need grant that would have made his or her education possible.

The good news is that there could be a way to relieve the cost to students while making sure professors are compensated competitively and appropriately. One solution could be to make contributions to professor’s salaries voluntary. If certain students strongly believe that their professors aren’t paid enough, this is the perfect opportunity for them to build an on-campus charitable fund for faculty compensation to which students and individuals donors can donate at will. This would also make it possible for students to contribute amounts they can realistically afford without significantly adding to their long-term cost of student loan debt.

If you think about it, it’s not much different from the university soliciting private donations to provide something it deems necessary to students’ education or experience. UW actually has a fantastic track record with private donations, which have funded everything from student scholarships to research projects to new buildings.

The biggest difference in this case is that students will have an opportunity to drive the fundraising initiative and, in the process, preserve the freedom to choose the level of contribution that is right for them and their situation.

Hacked? Ballot integrity put at risk by data breach

Sat, 11 May 2013 18:05:00 PDT

Washington State wants to make it easy for voters. You can even register to vote, or change your information, online. But a recent hack of state government computers raises the question: is it too easy?

Officials in the Administrative Office of the Courts had no idea they'd even been hacked until notified by a private company that was also a victim. The Associated Press story suggests failure to update software may have led to the breach. What was compromised? "Up to 160,000 Social Security numbers and 1 million driver’s license numbers may have been accessed during the data breach," according to AP.

With that information, it would be possible to change a voters address, misdirecting his or her ballot. The data breach may have happened shortly before ballots were mailed in last year's election, though state officials are unsure and may never know.

Technology offers an ever-expanding set of tools. But like any tools, they're subject to misuse and abuse. Sometimes the tried-and-true, the "old way," is still the best way. When it comes to elections, the move to voting by mail and increased reliance on information technology has only made the system more opaque and led to increasing questions about election integrity.

New Law Restricts Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying

Thu, 09 May 2013 12:20:00 PDT

Over two years ago, a Freedom Foundation intern named Preston Mui set about the arduous task of combing through a stack of documents looking for discrepancies in lobbying expenditures. It was probably about as exciting as it sounds. At the time, Preston didn't know what might come of his long hours of research, but today we know that it paid off in spades.

As reported by the Spokesman Review, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law Wednesday a bill (HB 1093) that will levy personal fines against government officials who fail to fully disclose how much of our money they spend on lobbyists. Preston's study revealed 68 Washington agencies that had failed to properly report their lobbying expenditures for years. Several were subsequently fined as a result of his work. Unfortunately, at the time, law dictated that the agencies themselves should pay the fine with taxpayer dollars. The new law will change that.

Learn more about Taxpayer-Funded
Lobbying in Washington

Agency heads will now be directly responsible for ensuring that their lobbying expenditures are properly reported and will face a personal penalty of $100 per statement (which can add up quickly) if they fail to do so.

This new law is a great step in the right direction for government transparency and accountability. We applaud Senator Matt Shea for sponsoring the bill and Governor Inslee for signing it. We also owe thanks to Preston for putting in the time to expose this slight on taxpayers.

You can rest assured that we’ll be checking with the Public Disclosure Commission to make sure agencies have followed the law.

The Domino Effect: Why College is Hurting Millennials

Thu, 09 May 2013 11:00:00 PDT

Everyone knows the cost of college is increasing rapidly and astronomically. The question most people can't answer is why that's happening. For many, the villian is often the colleges and universities themselves because they are the most obvious manipulators of the sticker price for higher education.

In reality, it's not that simple. The cost of college is rising due to a domino effect set in motion years ago. This week, I came across the most clear and succint explanation of this chain reaction in a blog post by Dylan Pahman at the Acton Institute.

"In effort to help our generation [i.e. Millennials], standards were lowered so that more of us would end up earning bachelor’s degrees. The result — which could have been predicted by an elementary supply and demand curve — is that we have lowered the quality of a product (college degrees) and increased supply. Naturally, demand has plummeted. In the meantime, more education requires greater financial aid. Combine this with the huge tuition jump since the 1980s, and it becomes clear how we have reached the $1 trillion student debt mark for the sake of degrees that are only as valuable as high school diplomas were thirty years ago and represent an education that is often not much better in quality."

Now that's one paragraph every Millennial should read. Millennials need to realize that the cost of college is going up because too many culteral and government institutions have created incentives and subsidies, leading to an excess supply of college degrees and debt but not necessarily a higher-quality, prepared workforce. Don't believe me? Then take it from these employers, who are beginning to realize that more isn't always better. Sometimes it's just more.

Technology offers new opportunities for education in Ethiopia

Tue, 07 May 2013 11:47:00 PDT

Imagine traveling to small village in Ethiopa, far removed from major cities and modern-day comforts. You're here because you've been tasked with addressing a significant need in this destitute, dusty village: basic education. What would your solution be?

It’s hard to imagine that, even in a world as developed as ours, there are still areas where people lack basic literacy skills and have no way to learn them. It seems unfair and unequal, but the beauty of the developed world is that it’s equipped to pursue innovative solutions for improving quality of life for these disadvantaged or underdeveloped parts of the world.

One stunning example of this occurred within the past year in a remote Ethiopian village like the one I just described. In this village, children who would be in a public elementary school if they were in the U.S. had instead gone through life without ever seeing a written word. An organization called One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) drew on technological innovation to test a new method of making basic literacy education accessible to them. They dropped of boxes of Motorola Xoom tablets, pre-loaded with literacy programs, and waited to see what would happen.

Nicholas Negroponte, founder of One Laptop Per Child, described the results: "We left the boxes in the village. Closed. Taped shut. No instruction, no human being. I thought, the kids will play with the boxes! Within four minutes, one kid not only opened the box, but found the on/off switch. He'd never seen an on/off switch. He powered it up. Within five days, they were using 47 apps per child per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs [in English] in the village. And within five months, they had hacked Android.”

Photo Credit: dvice.com

It’s a testament to the amazing capability of human creativity and intellect on multiple levels. From an economic development perspective, OLPC’s experiment could be revolutionary. Education can quickly reach these disadvantaged populations because technological progress has made it so much cheaper to do so. Think about it: the cost of a tablet pales in comparison to the cost of setting up a teaching program in that village. It’s not that teachers aren’t valuable; it’s that they come with additional costs like training, housing, salary, etc. And then there’s the time and resources that would be spent building schools or provided traditional educational materials.

OLPC’s experiment is not only evidence that technological innovation drastically changes lives, but it's also proof that the “progress of progress” is accelerating. As this fantastic video from The Fund for American Studies shows, it used to take decades for new innovations to change the lives of the poor and middle classes. Forty-six years passed before electricity was a common household commodity rather than a luxury for the wealthy. Today, innovations like cell phones, internet, and tablets are taking far less time to become cheap and available throughout the world.

So how is it that wealthy countries benefit the poor? They have been empowered by a free market, which encourages entrepreneurial innovation and competition, to create new opportunities that can improve the quality of life quickly and affordably. The possibilities are endless. And who knows? The next life-changing innovation just might come out of Ethiopia.

Shortened School Year

Mon, 06 May 2013 18:15:00 PDT

In recent years, we have seen an escalating trend of school districts in Washington adjusting the schedule to be more convenient for adults. Families and taxpayers should be receiving the school calendar which best serves students.

King 5 News Report: Part I

King 5 News Report: Part II with Jami Lund

Use of a shortened school year has grown

2010-11 72 districts 323 total days removed from the schedule
2011-12 89 districts 331 total days removed from the schedule
2012-13 108 districts 389 total days removed from the schedule

To see the current list, check the State Board of Education website.

Why do they do this?

Use of partial school days is widespread and growing.

Just a small sampling of how many partial days some of the districts have in their calendar:

Conway 51
South Kitsap 49
Mercer Island 46
Central Kitsap 46
North Mason 44
Bremerton 43
Morton 42
Port Townsend 41
Snoqualmie Valley 41
Grapeview 40
North Kitsap 38 AND 5 fewer days
Lake Washington 38
Bellevue 38
Oakville 36
Issaquah 36
Port Angeles 36
Crescent 36
Bainbridge Island 35 AND 4 fewer days
Sultan 33
Riverview 29
Onalaska 27
Burlington-Edison 26
Shelton 26
Battle Ground 23 AND 5 fewer days

When a wage increase from state or local levy funds is not possible, another accommodation is to make time during the employee workday for professional tasks which used to take place outside the workday. To do that, the school simply needs to send the students home.

Administrators value the practice, for they regain control of some of the employees’ time. This practice is the most convenient way to get employee unions to acquiesce to required expectations for professional development, collaboration or school improvement training.

The districts’ response will be that they are still getting 1,000 hours in their calendars, but is the organization optimal for students or for adults? If we shaved 12 minutes off of each employee’s workday, and added another work week to better serve students without changing the wage, would it be fair? Why then is it fair to do something like this to students?

What harm is done?

Students are not well-served by a disruptive schedule. Changing classes in school, for example, still takes the usual time, but the learning time in a shortened day is where all the loss is taken. Research suggests that shorter school years impact student learning. Additional research notes that longer summers produce more learning fade. Other countries are embracing school schedules which are longer and more attentive to student learning needs.

In addition, the inefficiency of this practice cannot be ignored. Each partial day has the same cost of transportation, heating, bringing in classified staff, feeding students, and other operating costs as a full day, but students receive shorter instructional time.

Finally, the disruption for families is a factor that should be considered in public schools.

Is it about funding?

In the news item, the union president defensively suggests that, “over the last couple of years, they cut $2.6 billion dollars.” This is her explanation of why students and families must be served with fewer school days or more partial school days.

First, there is not a $2.6 billion cut. The chart below shows the actual funding levels.

Second, it is true that desired pay increases were not given, and that a small, temporary wage reduction was imposed as the least impacting way to adjust spending in response to the damaged state economy. It is also true that in addition to the professional salary, the state paid $600 per teacher in return for working two days more than the 180 student days. Funding for these was cut three years ago. This represents a per-student spending reduction of $16.

Student needs should be the priority

Parents and communities should be indignant that student learning is being risked in some districts. The casual ease with which student services are cut demonstrates one of the problems of collective bargaining—students and families do not have a voice at the table.

Taxpayers should also be indignant. Certificated employees earn an average annual salary of $52,240 plus benefits, and administrators average more than $100,000 per year. For this annual professional salary, students are presumed to be served 180 days. As school board members change the calendar to placate employee interests, taxpayers are paying for more and receiving less.

When professionals are making a professional annual salary, why should their professional obligations cause any reduction in student services? No, it is time that families and taxpayers insist that student interests come first in setting the schedule.

Let's hope that school boards consider how to keep the interests of adults at the union bargaining table from prevailing over the interests of students. It is worth noting that trimming services without consequences is only possible in a monopoly. High performing charter schools typically offer a more student-focused schedule than other public schools.

Government Unions Get a Taxpayer Loophole

Mon, 06 May 2013 11:33:00 PDT

By its nature, collective bargaining by public employees pits public servants against the taxpayers they are supposed to serve. What’s more disturbing, taxpayers often wind up paying not only the salaries and benefits of public employees, but also directly funding union activity. While public employees’ unions are subsidized by public taxes in a number of ways, one recent example is particularly egregious.

According to an article in the Seattle Times, the head of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, Sgt. Rich O’Neill, has been receiving $125,000 per year in salary and benefits from the City of Seattle to work full-time for the Guild. The issue came to light as Seattle’s Labor Relations Policy Committee continues its efforts to negotiate a new contract with the Guild. According to the Times report, the committee, composed of five city councilmembers, is reluctant to continue to pay O’Neill.

While the article claims that O’Neill is the only union head paid a salary by the city, the practice of taxpayers subsidizing general union activity is widespread in both state and local collective bargaining agreements for public employees.

For instance, a 2011 investigative report by the Goldwater Institute in Arizona discovered,

Collective bargaining agreements with seven labor organizations require the city [of Phoenix] to pay union officers and provide members with thousands of additional hours to conduct union business instead of doing their government jobs. The total cost to Phoenix taxpayers is about $3.7 million per year.

In response, the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that the agreements violated a provision of the state constitution which bars public funds from being granted to private organizations without a resulting public benefit. A Phoenix judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt the practice, known as “release time.”

The total cost of release time in Washington is unknown but, as the case in Seattle demonstrates, it can get expensive quickly. Furthermore, like Arizona, Washington’s constitution contains a strongly-worded “gift clause” which states: “The credit of the state shall not, in any manner be given or loaned to, or in aid of, any individual, association, company or corporation.” Though public employees work for the government, public employees’ unions are still private associations, which leaves paid release time for public employees on shaky constitutional footing.

At the very least, it simply makes no sense for taxpayers to be forced to pay for union activity which is dedicated to increasing the amount of money unions can extract from taxpayers at the collective bargaining table.

Opening the floodgates to prosperity in Clark County

Fri, 03 May 2013 12:13:00 PDT

Opening the floodgates to prosperity in Clark County

Campaign promises are commonly dismissed as gimmicks used by politicians to attract voters. Not so for David Madore. He takes his promises seriously, and the newly-elected Commissioner is moving at lightning speed to fulfill them.

Last year Madore campaigned on a platform of restoring prosperity to Clark County, and he raised some eyebrows with his seemingly lofty claims. He was also committed to removing parking fees from county parks--a service he felt taxpayers were already funding with property taxes.

Madore hadn't warmed his commissioner’s seat for 90 days before he made good on his park fees promise. And now he’s making unprecedented moves to restore prosperity in Clark County.

For Madore the policy decision filter is easy. If it makes Clark County more prosperous, he’s going to support it, otherwise he’s going to eliminate it.

Madore ruffled feathers on Wednesday by joining with fellow Commissioner Mielke when they hired Senator Don Benton (R-Vancouver) as the county’s new director of environmental services. Opponents have criticised the hiring move as cronyism, and are claiming the Commissioners usurped the normal hiring process. The left-leaning local newspaper has reported on the whining sideshow. Madore, however, defended his decision and said, "We have the freedom to define this, and we are doing all that we can to serve our citizens."

Madore isn’t letting any grass grow under his feet. He is intent on fulfilling his prosperity promise, and today he made an announcement that is sure to set the local liberal’s hair on fire. He is dead-set on eliminating all “job creator fees including Traffic Impact Fees, Development Fees, and Building Permit Fees for any property that is zoned for business.”

Here is Madore’s Facebook Post from Wednesday

Opening the floodgates to local private jobs:
On Tuesday, May 7 at 6 pm, unless we hear compelling arguments that we do not already know about, we will be voting to remove all job creator fees including Traffic Impact Fees, Development Fees and Building Permit Fees for any property that is zoned for business.

The unprecedented move includes streamlining the permit process to speed the time to the bare minimum. To do so, we will be filling a vacant leadership position to champion storm water permits to ensure full speedy compliance with the Department of Ecology. We need to gear up to handle the flood of new permits so job creators can start creating local jobs without further delay.

We are very fortunate to have an available champion with ample experience in both the public and private sector ready to step up to maximize effective customer service provided by our outstanding staff. Don Benton is well qualified to breathe new life into this crucial department with ample qualifications as an experienced leader who knows how to help our team achieve great success.

Our priority is to unleash free enterprise in Clark County to get people back to work. Please spread the word. If you have been waiting to launch or expand your business, the time is upon us. We can succeed in becoming a model for the Department of Ecology and champion local jobs so our community can prosper and thrive again. Let’s get our community back to work and let’s do it now. Will you join me?

Clark County voters elected a man that promised to bring prosperity to Clark County, and he’s doing everything he can to fulfill his promise to them. He should be an inspiring example for anyone who has a desire to make a change in their own community.

If you have a desire to get involved in your local government, start here. We have compiled all the local positions that are up for election this year. The lists are available by county.

---

Clark County commissioners scrap parking fees at parks, boat launches

Benton selection fuels anger among public

Who Will Stand For Election This Year?

The history of special sessions

Thu, 02 May 2013 15:34:00 PDT

Government begins with legislation. That means one of the best ways to limit government is to limit what the legislature can do (as our federal Constitution does, particularly in Article I, Sections 1, 8, and 9) and to limit how long it has to do it.

Our State Constitution limits the legislature to 105 days in odd-numbered, budget-writing years, and 60 days in even-numbered, legislative election years. In case of emergencies, the Constitution allows for "special sessions." One such event is scheduled to begin Monday, May 13.

The emergency this time is that the legislature (with the complicity of the Governor) left it's most important job--writing, negotiating, and adopting a state budget--until last. Actually, that's been the reason for most recent special sessions: either writing or re-writing the state's two-year budget. (Imagine what would happen to a major corporation's stock if it delayed a shareholder meeting with the explanation that it just hadn't gotten around to figuring out its next year's budget....)

Frequent special sessions are an abuse of the State Constitution and of state taxpayers who foot the bill for the extra time.

The trend isn't promising, either. Washington has been a state for 124 years. For the first 91 years, the legislature only regularly met ever other year, and there were 35 special sessions. Since 1980 when the legislature began holding regular sessions every year, the frequency of special sessions has actually increased. In the last 33 years there have been 40 special sessions--an average of more than one per year.

Looked at another way,

from statehood until 1950, the legislature met an average of 35 days per year,
from 1951 through 1980, the legislature met an average of 60 days per year,
from 1981 through 2010, the legislature met an average of 90 days per year, and
from 2011 up to today, the legislature has met an average of 115 days per year.*

That final average--already longer than the "long" 105-day regular session--will climb when the legislature returns on May 13.

Legislators need to acknowledge that the legislature has a problem. Constituents should be interested in their legislators' explanations as well as in whether their legislators have any idea what should be done.

Freedom Foundation experts will weigh in on the issue during the Free Washington Tour--a series of community meetings held around Washington State in the days leading up to this next special session. Find out more at FreeWaTour.com.

* Numbers are rounded and do not account for leap years. See the complete data. Access more legislative history.

Unnecessary special session starts May 13

Thu, 02 May 2013 10:32:00 PDT

Nearly one month ago, the State Senate passed a bipartisan, balanced budget. It garnered 30 votes—21 from Republicans and 9 from Democrats—from the chamber’s 49 members. The bipartisan plan represents hard choices, including moving some funds from social services to education. While it would spend more than the state has ever spent before, the plan does not raise taxes.

One week later, the State House or Representatives passed a partisan budget that would rely on more than $1 billion in tax hikes. The House has 98 members, with a Democrat majority of 55. The budget received 54 votes—purely partisan support.

The Senate plan is not perfect. After all, it represents a compromise. But the plan does respect the will of voters by requiring state government to live within its existing means. Finally, the Senate budget abides by Gov. Jay Inslee’s campaign promise not to raise taxes.

Yet instead of accepting the Senate plan or engaging in serious negotiations, House leaders and the Governor threw up their hands and walked away. They allowed the clock to run out on the regular session and chose to call a special session—but not right away, lest it impede members’ ability to raise political cash for various races this fall.

Click here to register
for the Free WA Tour

Special session starts on Monday, May 13. And while the Governor could limit the special session to budget matters, he’s doing the opposite and demanding revival of some of the most controversial policy bills—forced abortion insurance, gun control, etc. All this leaves a number of questions facing Washingtonians….

Will the Governor succeed in distracting both legislators and citizens from a rather simple budget choice?
Will tax-consuming special interests win, or can taxpayers force legislators to hold the line?
On July 1, 2013, will the state have a new budget, or will state government shut down?

The Freedom Foundation staff would like to talk with you in person next week about the answers to these questions. Find out more at FreeWaTour.com.

You can also keep up on what happens with TheOlympiaReport.com.

Are Government Unions good for Washington workers?

Wed, 01 May 2013 10:11:00 PDT

Labor unions in Washington are well established and have significant influence – not all of it good – on the state’s economy, politics and policy. All too often, public employees’ unions use their influence to further their own interests, increase their power, buy off political leaders, and rig the system against taxpayers and workers who dissent from union control.

Overall, Washington State has the fourth-highest rate of union participation in the country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 18.5 percent of workers in 2012 were represented by a union, while the nationwide average stood at only 11.2 percent.

While private unions are nothing new, public employee unions are a more recent phenomenon. In fact, Washington state employees have only had full collective bargaining rights since 2002. Now, Washington State has more collective bargaining statutes than any other state in the Union, and the rate of union representation in Washington is much higher in the public sector (53.5%) than it is in the private sector (11.8%). At the state level, fully 75% of workers are covered by collective bargaining. All told, over 270,000 public employees in Washington are members in or represented by a union.

The growth of public sector unionization has been aided by the fact that Washington is a “union security” or “forced unionism” state, which allows unions to negotiate collective bargaining agreements requiring workers to pay the union, even if they decide not to officially join the union. But it doesn’t have to be this way; twenty-four states are “right-to-work” states, where workers cannot be required to pay the union as a condition of employment.

Click to enlarge photo

Fueled by their forced union dues, public employees’ unions lobby heavily to expand the size of state government further and sweep more workers under their influence. Public unions are also very active politically, and are consistently among the highest-spending lobbyists in Olympia. In addition to forcing dues from their members, unions push a political agenda on many members who would rather not have unions speak for them politically. When it comes to campaign finance, unions contribute overwhelmingly – often over 90% – to Democrats, despite the fact that a significant number of union members are conservative. A survey commissioned by the AFL-CIO on the eve of the 2012 presidential election found that 33% of union members planned to vote for Republican Mitt Romney. In other words, public unions are allowed to spend forcibly-collected union dues to advance political and social causes at least a third of their members disagree with.

Furthermore, it is doubtful that unions remain necessary to improve the lot of public servants, who generally fare much better than their private-sector counterparts. While the average yearly wage in Washington State is $51,150 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary for a full-time public employee of the State of Washington is $61,028, according to the Census Bureau.

Washington’s pro-union labor climate has wider policy implications as well, which extend far beyond the 270,000 public employees with union representation. Washington ranks 35^th on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Big Labor vs. Taxpayer Index, placing our state toward the bottom of the list for how well our labor system treats taxpayers. Furthermore, Washington was ranked “Tier III: Poor” – the bottom category – in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Employment Regulation Index, which measures how well a state’s labor policies promote job creation.

Thankfully, all of this has not been lost on the average taxpayer. A 2011 survey found that 63 percent of people in the Pacific Northwest believe that, “In looking out for their own interests, public sector unions increase the size and cost of government too much.” There has been no better time to pursue reforms that create choices and economic opportunity for everyone, not just for the people who collect the dues.

Freedom Foundation Helps Local Activist

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:34:00 PDT

Local activist Paula Baruffi, wanted to educate the Washington State Legislature about Agenda 21--a property rights issues she's passionate about. Her idea was to deliver the book 'Behind the Green Mask' to each legislator.

After her initial organizing efforts produced little results, she contacted the Freedom Foundation for help with her project. We helped her make a video that explained her project, and craft and effective email appeal. We also helped her plan and organize the book delivery.

Working together, Paula had tremendous success. She raised enough money to cover the purchase of all the books, plus she's well on her way to purchasing a second book for delivery. She also had over 170 handwritten letters to legislators talking about Agenda 21 and there were over 40 people that helped her deliver books to their legislators.

The Freedom Foundation is available to help any freedom-loving activists in Washington be more effective, in fact, it’s a big part of our mission and what we think our members expect us to do.

If you like that we help local activists like Paula, and would like to support our mission, you can contribute online here.

CityScan has a solution for cash-strapped cities

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:47:00 PDT

It may sound Orwellian to have government watching and fining you for installing a bike rack or flower box, but if CityScan has their way, this is exactly what is coming to a town near you.

CitySan is a company that uses Nokia’s LiDAR mapping technology to create 3-D images of the built environment. They will match this data with permitting records, and then send property owners fines for anything that doesn’t match a permitting record on file. CityScan CEO David Guttman said, “For some municipalities, fixing this problem can add millions of dollars of revenue per year for cities that are cash-strapped and over budget.”

CityScan subsribes to Nokia’s LiDAR (Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging) technology. Nokia uses LiDAR in combination with other technology to create highly detailed maps. You can see Nokia in action here in this video.

Certainly, this kind of technology is put to use in mapping applications that make our day-to-day lives easier. If you’ve ever wondered how GPS navigation maps are created, now you know--LiDAR is responsible for a lot of the detail.

What happens when a group of entrepreneurs get together and brainstorm how to use these detailed maps? CityScan is born.

CityScan is a private company that intends to use their technology to help municipalities generate more revenue by issuing fines for permit violations. They say cities are cash-strapped and under staffed, and their technology will solve these problems. What is implicit is that their system is designed to bailout fiscally irresponsible cities on the backs of taxpayers. More and more cities are running into citizen resistance to raise taxes, so raising fees and fines sound more attractive to city councils and city managers.

You think this is too far-fetched? Not if Guttman has his way. He said, “Every permit, every billboard, every on-premise sign, every bike rack or flower box--technically all these things are supposed to pay fees to the cities in which they exist.”

Guttman proposes to provide their technology for free to cities in return for a percentage of fines collected. He said, “For cities that are top-line-driven, we can deliver a solution turnkey where they're not having to come out-of-pocket a nickle up front. Because we have the Nokia data, we can do it really cost-effectively, and we keep a percentage of what we collect.”

And how robust is that dataset? Ivan Sheldon, Head of Business Development for Nokia said, “Now we have this ground-level LiDAR collection that is precise of the entire world.” In other words, it’s pretty robust.

How did this story get on my radar? It came as a tip from a local Washington jurisdiction that is being solicited by CityScan.

If you’re local jurisdiction is considering using CityScan, or if you are interested in helping get the word out, please contact me at the Freedom Foundation.

http://vimeo.com/53815197
http://cityscan.com/

Evergreen State College students support indefinite detention and domestic wiretapping

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:23:00 PDT

Evergreen State College students support indefinite detention and domestic wiretapping as long as Obama does it. At a college campus in Washington State that is known for being pretty left-leaing, even by the standards of the modern day college campus, the ability to question authority has vanished...

This is a classic video which helps illustrate the fact that so many people are really just sheep, failing to engage their critical thinking skills and willing to just go with the flow. These are students who are theoretically learning how to think for themselves, question authority, and speak truth to power. Instead, there is just a strange willingness to accept any bad behavior from an elected official, as long as they supported that elected official. Watch this video, share it with others, and hopefully more people begin to engage some critical thinking:

Pick up an antler - go to jail for six months

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:25:00 PDT

Earlier this week, I was visiting my Uncle and Aunt who live outside Colville, WA. My uncle Dwight and I were out near his property and we found these moose antlers shed on the road. If you have ever spent much time in the woods, you know this is an exciting discovery and a real treasure. I’ve found elk and deer antlers before, but I’ve never found moose antlers, let alone a matched set of antlers so easy to locate. I was excited and I brought these antlers home and showed my children. Tomorrow, they are bringing them to class as a show and tell project to share with other students.

Fortunately for me, and to the enjoyment of my children and their classmates, I picked up these antlers where it is legal to pick up shed antlers. It is not legal to do this everywhere.

You read that sentence correctly. It is illegal, according to Federal Law 36 CFR 2.1(a)(1)(i) to pick up shed antlers in places like the Olympic National Park or Rainier National Park, for example. In fact, the penalty for picking up an antler in these locations could be up to $5000 and 6 months in jail. Think about that for a moment. In a country where criminals who commit serious crimes rarely see significant jail time until they’ve harmed many people multiple times, you can be locked up for 6 months in jail for picking up an antler.

When we talk about the over criminalization of society, this is just one minor, obscure example of how harmless activity can be punished far out of proportion to any conceivable harm caused by the offender. The frivolous excuse used by the National Parks Service for this extreme penalty is that antlers are eaten by voles, rodents, and other animals and removing them from the wild is harmful to the ecosystem. While there may be people out there who can suspend disbelief and swallow this story, it really is a classic bureaucratic excuse for just stopping another healthy, normal human activity that hurts nobody and causes no harm – yet it is treated as a major crime.

Despite the claims by the National Park Service that it is terrible for the ecosystem to remove antlers, the Boy Scouts of America are still allowed to pick up shed antlers in Wyoming at the National Elk Refuge under contract since the 1950s and they donate 80% of the auction value of these antlers back to the wildlife refuge itself. See this great video:

Amazingly, the environment and the ecosystem seems to still be just fine there and everywhere else shed antlers might be removed by humans. I’m glad I removed these moose antlers and it is wonderful to see how they are used to help educate children about the wonder of nature, the wildlife and the wilderness. I contacted both the Olympic National Park and Rainier National Park to see how many people have been charged with this terrible crime in Washington State, but as of this time, my calls were not returned. I will update this post if they can provide me this information. It is a shame, however, that a harmless activity like picking up an antler can land you in Federal prison, and it does make you think about other, obscure laws which exist out there, and could land you in the slammer for a long time for no true crime.

If you have any similar stories about pointless laws with unnecessarily harsh penalties – please email them to me.

UPDATE: Chuck Young, Chief Ranger for Rainier National Park called me back the day after I posted this article and told me that, "in 6 1/2 years I have never written a ticket or seen a ticket written for this violation at Mt. Rainier." I had a good conversation with him, and he mentioned that it would be difficult to find antlers in the terrain and conditions of the park. He helpfully indicated that the same law would probably apply to the North Cascades National Park and at Lake Roosevelt.

UPDATE #2: Colin Smith, Chief Ranger for Olympic National Park called me back a few days later and in his four years at the Olympic National Park, they have prosecuted two people under this law. However, he indicated that this was a regular problem they had with campers or hikers unknowingly attempting to walk out of the park carrying an antler. He said in most cases, they just required the violator to throw the antler in the bushes and leave it without a formal infraction. He indicated that they had more problems with this type of violation at the Olympic National Park than at Rainier because they had a much larger elk herd. I was glad to hear that they were not inflicting the full penalty of the law on most citizens they caught, but it does imply that the law should probably be changed (if not repealed) to apply only to the large scale collection of antlers for profit - which apeared to be the only two cases they were prosecuting. If this is how it is actually being enforced, then perhaps the law should be changed to reflect the realities in the park - just a thought to ponder.

In Canadian Parks, the crime of picking up an antler is even worse as indicated in this article.

Bad Contract: Battle Ground School District

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:36:00 PDT

On November 5, 2012 all five board members of the Battle Ground School Board of Directors signed support of a contract with the teachers union which imposes policies which:

Use $4 million of levy funds to add to the wages of employees already paid an average of $52,000 plus benefits by the state and giving the highest wage enhancements to the best paid employees,
Reduce the school year by five days and shorten 23 of the remaining school days,
Turn a 2% wage reduction into a 3% service cut with furloughs shutting down services to students and families on ten days,
Promise not to improve any services for students until the state decrease in funds for employee wages is restored,
Prohibit teacher evaluations based upon whether teachers are effective at helping students learn,
Tie administrators hands with a discipline policy unclear about “just cause” and “adverse action,” and which offers hurdles to sensible management,
Give extra pay bonuses to the top-paid employees only,
Provide levy funds for cashing out district-granted personal leave days,
Permit teachers to take wage increases instead of other means of addressing a large class size,
Let seniority rather than the interests of students determine where staff is deployed and who gets retained when layoffs are necessary,
Pay the wages of teachers working solely for the union interests in exchange for letting the union pay the costs of substitute teachers, and
Force teachers to pay the union about $1,000 if they want to teach in BGSD

These policies suggest that the interests of adult employees are far more important than the interests of students. A conscientious school board has the power to make these decisions differently.

Who is on your school board, and how they are using the immense power they have over the quality, cost, and services of the local schools?

In 2013, half of all school board positions will be decided on the November ballot.

It is time for citizens to reclaim their schools by running for school board or supporting quality candidates who do. Usually, only union officials pay attention to these races, and they fund their preferred candidates. Sometimes the union operatives even recruit and train candidates.

What education costs you

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:54:00 PDT

Many think that decisions about education policy, priorities and spending are best left to those who work in schools or who have children in schools. I read something recently which describes how much wage earners should care about education policy and spending.

As Mike Antonucci of Education Intelligence Agency described it:

For many years we have expressed education expenditures as “per-pupil spending.” This is a reasonably good way to frame the numbers, though controversy sometimes arises over what is included and what isn’t. The following is a list of different angles on the same spending. All the figures cited are for 2010, courtesy of the National Center of Education Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Census Bureau.

1) Revenues collected by governments for public education in the United States totaled $593.7 billion. About $261.4 billion came from local sources, $258.2 billion from state sources, and $74 billion from federal sources.

2) That’s about $1,922 from each and every American.

3) Or $2,531 from each adult, 18 and older.

4) Or $4,567 from each non-farm American worker on a payroll.

5) That amounts to 11.4 percent of the average worker’s salary, or $2.20 per hour.

6) The average American employee thus works almost one hour every day to fund public schools.

7) It would take the entire salary of 14,842,500 employees to pay for U.S. public schools, equivalent to the entire retail trade workforce.

Source: http://www.eiaonline.com/2013/04/22/seven-not-so-fun-facts-about-the-costs-of-public-education/

Whatcom County destroys the environment in order to save it

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:35:00 PDT

In 1968, during the Viet Nam War, AP Correspondent Peter Arnett attributed a quote from an American Army Major after the destruction of the Vietnamese Village Ben Tre, “It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.” This quote, which is still controversial, was repeated frequently by the anti-war protesters as an illustration of the lack of logic in the Viet Nam conflict.

Today, this is also official policy and business as usual at Whatcom County as they require property owners to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands in order to save the wildlife and wetlands. Last Friday I visited with a property owner – Joe Remenar in North Whatcom County near Blaine. Not far from the Martin property which I discussed in this post a few weeks ago.

Joe retired from the Department of Justice as a former special agent working with drug interdiction who had done overseas tours in places like Afghanistan. He purchased a small property and home not far from the Canadian border in Whatcom County. Enjoying the views out his back deck, he decided to improve the wildlife habitat on his property. He didn’t apply for a grant or take taxpayer dollars, he just spent his own time and money to improve the habitat for the birds, amphibians, insects, and other critters by building a pond. He was careful in his pond construction. He did not interrupt the flow of a stream (also known as an “instream flow” violation). The State Fish and Wildlife biologists reported that his pond was a clear and obvious wildlife enhancement project.

He was justifiably proud of his accomplishment and it changed a field with little habitat into a pond with nesting geese, feeding grounds for great blue herons, and other wildlife in the area. However, he made one crucial mistake – he did not get permission from the Central Planners at Whatcom County. For this crime against bureaucracy, he was going to be punished. As further proof that the Nanny State isn’t just a thorn in everyone’s side, but it is also a thoughtless, rapacious beast – the geniuses at Whatcom County led by Whatcom County’s lead Central Planner – Lyn Morgan-Hill (no relation to the author), demand that Mr. Remenar must destroy the pond and wildlife habitat in order to save the wildlife habitat. This was the solution only a dedicated Central Planner could invent and justify. Just to be clear, of course – Mr. Remenar would also have to pay one of the “preferred” consultants approved by Whatcom County to create the plan on how to fill in the pond.

Like most people, Mr. Remenar doesn’t want to destroy the wildlife habitat on his property. He wants to save it, but the Central Planning mindset at Whatcom County has only one plan, and Whatcom County’s plan is not required to make sense. The faux environmentalists who attack property owners like Mr. Remenar never have to say they are sorry or even have a rational reason for their actions. They just inflict harm on property owners like Mr. Remenar and care little about the consequences. To Central Planners like Lyn Morgan-Hill, it makes sense to destroy the environment in order to save it.

Life Lessons from Greg Glassman, Founder of CrossFit

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:26:00 PDT

The excitement was palpable as people scoped out the best seats for Greg Glassman's presentation. By the time Greg was ready to hit the stage, over 500 people had settled in. Most of these attendees were familiar with CrossFit's fitness benefits. As Glassman spoke, he introduced them to another side of CrossFit - the side that uses business as a way to empower others and give back to society.

Glassman explained how CrossFit continually creates unique opportunities for others to be better and pursue their dreams - just like the free enterprise system does. Some of those opportunities are physical, geared toward making people more fit. Other opportunities are economic. Through the affiliate program, CrossFit empowers individuals to start small businesses of their own and make a living by helping others live stronger, healthier lives. The beauty of this approach is that individuals are free to choose what "be better" means to them.

Greg Glassman speaks about fitness, business, and freedom at the University of Washington
Click here to see more photos from the event.

One event attendee, Noah Creek, a CrossFit trainer and higher education professional, was so inspired that he blogged about the event the very next day. In his post, Creek highlighted what sets CrossFit and Glassman apart in the business arena:

"Glassman set up a free enterprise model of affiliation, as opposed to franchising his brand. He has almost single-handedly created a platform in which thousands of individuals have become entrepreneurs...Glassman conveyed that the overall goal is for the pie to continue growing, while his slice continues to shrink. Glassman has put his opportunity for obscene wealth on the backburner to empower those in the community."

So what was the takeaway for those in the audience?

As Creek summarizes, "These 'business' lessons are extended beyond the boardroom and the bottom line. These words are how we should be living our lives. Focus on excellence. Seek opportunities to give that are so enriching it becomes an obligation. Pursue your passion. Provide uniquely attractive opportunities."

Thanks to Noah Cheek for sharing his reaction to our event with Greg Glassman. You can read the rest of his event highlights here.

Can the Police Search My Home for a Bomber?

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:34:00 PDT

Today in Watertown, Massachusetts, law enforcement officials are going from house to house with trained SWAT team snipers drawing a bead on any occupants and instructing those occupants to exit the houses so the police can enter and search the premises.

Is this constitutional?

No.

Contrary to this article posted on Slate.com, constitutional rights do not evaporate whenever the government decides they would be inconvenient. Police have no right to expel citizens from their homes or to engage in warrantless searches of those homes just because the government declares that an emergency exists.

The Fourth Amendment makes clear that people have a right for their persons and homes to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that judges must not issue warrants permitting the government to intrude upon someone's home unless there is a clear reason to believe that a specific thing or person will be found in a specific, identified location. The Washington Constitution is even more protective of citizens' rights, stating that "no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

Courts have, by-and-large, allowed certain exceptions to these constitutional rules, such as if the police see a potential criminal enter someone's property and there is no time to obtain the warrant that would otherwise be necessary to follow the suspect. This is known as the "hot pursuit" doctrine. Courts also usually recognize an exception if police believe that intruding on a citizen's property is necessary to assist someone threatened with immediate harm or injury.

But these exceptions do not apply to the circumstances in Watertown. The police do not know where the suspected criminal is, and they have no reason to believe that he is in any specific house in Watertown. Neither do they have any reason to believe that any specific citizen of Watertown is in immediate danger of harm or injury. And, importantly, they also have no reason to believe that any specific citizen is harboring the suspect in their home.

Thus, this entire operation is one gigantic fishing expedition - and that is precisely the sort of thing forbidden by the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.

The police can warn people to be on the lookout for the suspect. They can ask for permission to search a citizen's home. But unless they have clear reason to believe that the suspect is on a specific property and that he might escape in the time necessary to obtain a warrant, the police cannot constitutionally force citizens out of their homes or engage in a warrantless search of those homes.

I can hear some people now saying, "But surely these are special circumstances..."

They are not, and it is extremely dangerous for the very idea of constitutional liberty to presume that citizens may be stripped of their rights whenever the government declares it necessary. History teaches us that one exception breeds another, and that pattern will continue until the exceptions destroy the rule. Once the principles of liberty have been sacrificed, it is exceptionally difficult for them to be recovered. We must remain vigilant and steadfast in our protection of our rights, and we must not allow fear to lead us to abandon those rights.

UPDATE: Some people have raised questions about the assumptions I made when writing this post. I'd like to address that issue.

First, let's look at some of the underlying facts. Last night police engaged the suspect in an exchange of fire while in the vicinity of Watertown. In the course of that engagement, the suspect is believed to have used firearms and explosive devices. He escaped the scene and the police assume that he did so on foot, which may be why they believe that he remains in the area. The police also apparently believe that he remains armed and dangerous.

With that information at hand, some have noted that the Fourth Amendment only protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, suggesting that if the police believe that an armed, dangerous person is in a certain area it would be reasonable for them to search any of the property in that area, even without first obtaining a warrant. They have contended that we cannot know what the police know, so we are in no position to judge whether the police action is "reasonable" or not. Some have also posited that the searches taking place may be strictly voluntary, in which case no warrant is necessary.

Here is my response:

I'll start with the question of whether the searches that we're talking about could be said to be "voluntary" - in which case there is simply no constitutional question raised. Here's some video of what was taking place today. I count nearly a dozen law enforcement officials outside the house, weapons drawn, and that's before the armored personnel carrier (and its heavily-armed occupants) arrived. According to this first-person account, property owners were being identified by name and asked to come to their doors, where they were greeted by heavily armed men. It's not clear if citizens were being instructed to exit their homes with their hands up, but apparently many of them were doing so. Under these circumstances, I strongly question whether anyone could feel that they had a right to demand that the police show a warrant before entering onto their property; if a citizen wanted to argue that the "consent" that they offered under these circumstances was not voluntary, I think they would have a very good case. That said, I am not currently aware of any person who told police that they would not leave their home or that the police could not search their home without first obtaining a warrant.

But let's say, hypothetically, that someone did demand that police must show a warrant. Could the police simply ignore that demand and proceed with an unwarranted search?

I think not. It is true that warrants are not always necessary, although courts have generally suggested that unwarranted searches are presumed to be unconstitutional. The question, then is whether the search the police intended to conduct would be "reasonable" under the circumstances. As I noted in my primary post, courts have determined that it is "reasonable" for police to enter property without a warrant if they are in "hot pursuit" of a suspect or if they have reason to believe that someone is in such eminent danger that there is no time to obtain a warrant. And, as stated above, I believe that neither of those circumstances is present in Watertown - which is supported by the fact that the precise whereabouts of the suspect are not known and there does not appear to be any identifiable person in immediate danger of harm.

But isn't it sufficient that the police have reason to believe that the suspect is in the general area? Isn't that enough for unwarranted searches to be "reasonable?" I don't think so. Part of the reason we have constitutional protections against unwarranted searches and seizures is so that the government will have to put evidence in front of an impartial judge so that the judge will be able to determine if that evidence is sufficient to justify intrusion into citizens' homes and privacy. If the police have reason to believe that the suspect is in a certain vicinity, they should seal off that area, then ask a court for a warrant to search any property in that area for the suspect. If the judge believes that the evidence is adequate, the police will have their warrant and the constitutional concerns I have raised become moot. But if the judge thinks the evidence is not adequate to issue a warrant, the Fourth Amendment should safeguard the people against being compelled to allow unwanted police intrusion onto their property.

Furthermore, if in asking for permission to inspect property the police observe some new evidence that leads them to believe that the suspect is present, they can then take that evidence to a judge and seek a warrant for that specific property. Thus, there are clearly ways that the police could proceed with a legitimate search for a suspect while staying within the bounds of constitutional limitations. And where the police can conduct searches within constitutional boundries, I believe it is imperative that they do so. Again, if we make exceptions, they will eventually swallow the rule.

No Legislative Change on School Days

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:45:00 PDT

Legislators who are concerned about the rapid growth in “early release” school days have not been successful at defining the day, year or the salaried employee work expectation.

On the other hand, legislators who have responded to school employees’ desire to further reduce the number days students are served have also been unsuccessful.

Stalled Bills:

Senator Litzow’s SB 5588 required six instructional hours in each of the 180 school days. It was modified to be a study of school’s use of days.

Representative Lytton’s HB 1369 permitted entire elementary schools to easily shorten their year by five days.

Senator Litzow’s SB 5852 eliminated references to the number of school days, and required only the 1,000 hours.

Representative Klippert’s HB 1492 expanded the ability of districts to use cost-savings as a reason to dramatically adjust their schedule.

Taxpayers and students are cheated when spending for education increases and service levels decrease. In recent years, service levels have eroded significantly, and now nearly all districts use partial school days, shortened school years, or both.

At some point, the expectation for the employee day, employee year, student day and student year cannot be left nebulous as in current law. As we move from spending $10 billion per year to implementing the dream of spending $11 or $12 billion per year, the question of service levels must be addressed.

However, it looks like nothing related to calendars will change in 2013.

Additional information on school service level declines:

Open Letter to Senator Rolfes March 2013

Video: No More Stealing from Students Feb. 2013

Sultan School Employees Contract: Bad News Sept. 2012

Are Adults Cheating Students Out of School Days in Your District? June 2012

Shorten the School Year? Nov. 2011

Education Priorities--Cut Services or Cut Costs? Nov. 2011

Governor’s Proposed Budget: Cut Education Services of Cut Costs? Oct. 2011

HB 2038: Beer for kids

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:21:00 PDT

Up for a hearing Friday morning is House Bill 2038, a bundle of tax increases where new revenues would be directed to education via the state's Education Legacy Trust Account.

The bill is part of an agenda that claims to be about bringing more uniformity to Washington State's tax system--a laudable goal. Yet uniformity works both ways--businesses shouldn't get special breaks and they shouldn't be singled out and targeted for special taxes.

HB 2038 includes tax increases on the following kinds of businesses and business activities.

Service businesses
Insurance agents
Travel agents and tour operators
Stevedores
Janitorial services
Research and development
Interstate transportation
Import commerce
Reselling prescription drugs
Making and selling beer

While most of the changes would eliminate preferential tax rates, the beer tax is a straightforward tax hike.

In 2010, the legislature was short of money, unwilling to scale back state spending, and too scared of voters to pass across-the-board tax increases. They enacted a temporary tax on beer: $15.50 per barrel. Exempt were the first 60,000 barrels sold by small breweries, and the tax was set to expire June 30, 2013.

HB 2038 would make the tax permanent, albeit taking the rate down to $7.75 per barrel. It would also eliminate the exemption for small breweries, taxing them at $4.65 per barrel.

Important questions for legislators include the following.

Is the beer tax in HB 2038 intended to punish people who produce beer, or is that simply a side effect?
Is the beer tax intended to punish people who drink beer, or is that simply a side effect?
Does the legislature hope to reduce beer consumption in Washington State?
On the other hand, is the legislature planning to encourage people to drink beer in order to fund schools?
If HB 2038 passes, will legislators pledge to help PTAs with future Oktoberfest events?

Legislators can't have it both ways. It is true that taxes in Washington State are full of special-interest provisions--the results of past legislative choices--that make the system less fair and more complex. Yet if legislators actually believe taxes should be more uniform, they cannot also heap special taxes on industries perceived as easy targets. Considering the beer tax, HB 2038 appears to be simply about finding more revenue for government.

Education Budgets Compared

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:07:00 PDT

One of the central issues driving the budget this year is education funding and the McCleary decision.

Now we can see how state lawmakers hope to proceed with the obligations imposed by previous studies and the resulting court decision.

New spending on education falls into four categories:

1. Filling gaps.

To transport students to school, one must reasonably pay for diesel. If the formula pretends impossibly low costs, then the function is underfunded. Only a few of these kinds of holes exist in education budgeting.

2. Expanding services.

The Court moved the goal when it comes to adequate funding of basic education. Five years ago, half day kindergarten was all that the state was obligated to provide; today the court is holding the legislature to its study-recommended obligation to provide full-day kindergarten. Many of the most expensive new elements in education budgets are related to expanding services.

3. Expanding costs.

If the wages of all adults employed in education were doubled tomorrow, district budgets would still have holes and services for families would not change. Yet, this is the area of greatest focus by the employee groups.

4. Trading up.

The court and common sense dictate that ineffective expenditures should be traded in for more effective ones. For example, the studies resulting in the court ruling found that the state spending of hundreds of millions of dollars for employees credentials offered no measurable effect on student learning. Spending instead on quality, services or competition offers a better hope of an improved funding system.

PROPOSED NEW SPENDING (dollars in millions)

Governor Inslee

Senate Coalition

House Democrats

Comments

Filling Gaps:

$467 for materials, supplies and operating costs (MSOC) although he includes professional development funds for employees in this.

$198 transportation

$521 MSOC

$198 transportation

$461 MSOC

$144 transportation

$114 administrative salary to increase from $60,448 per administrator to $71,826

MSOC used to be clearly non-employee costs. Blurring the line by adding pay for listening to training as the governor does is unwelcome. It does seem that a half billion dollars might do more than “filliing a gap”

Unless the wage of $60k (less than top paid teachers) is correct for administrators, this is filling a hole.

Expanding Services

$116 half schools to offer full day kindergarten with smaller class size

$98 8% increase in hours of school for grades 7-12

$35 early learning expanded

$41 35% highest poverty schools full day kindergarten

$24 early learning students and rate of pay increased

$92 60% highest poverty schools full day kindergarten

$63 partial increase in grade 7-12 hours of school

$39 early learning expanded

“Services” means some actual, tangible new educational opportunity.

“Expanding” means it is something impossible within existing resources. State already pays for 1,000 hours and a select number of employees, adding time is the clearest example. Redeploying existing staff to different tasks is not.

Expanding Costs

$166 restore/increase wages by 1.9% certificated instructional employees and 3% all others

$128 more staff funded in K-1 in high poverty schools

$28 poverty-based program Learning Assistance Program (LAP) includes dropout prevention efforts

$22 English language acquisition program (TBIP) enhancement.

$166 restore/increase wages by 1.9% certificated instructional employees and 3% all others

$6 TBIP enhancement

$166 restore/increase wages by 1.9% certificated instructional employees and 3% all others

$225 more staff funded in K-3 in all schools

$28 LAP enhanced

$12 TBIP enhancement

$133 more per classified employee

$23 parent engagement employees

$18 guidance counselors

Nobody is talking about this $166 change in wages.

These enhancements are essentially potential class size reductions for specified instruction within some days for some students. They might be a service expansion, but very slight. Likewise a sprinkling of new employees with state-specified duties could be a slight increase.

Trading Up

$240 consolidates other funds into more targeted Learning Assistance Program (LAP) and reading accountability

Unfortunately, lawmakers remain inside the box of “business as usual” and nearly all ideas simply add money/employees without reforming fundamental assumptions about how education could be provided.

WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING

Trade ineffective expenditures for effective expenditures.

Revise compensation to de-emphasize credentials and longevity, and emphasize hours of service, difficult work, hard-to-fill positions, and effectiveness.
Move the emphasis away from funding extraordinary job benefits and toward services and effectiveness.
Create incentives to contract for services competitively.
Redefine the employee work year to include all work and expectations.
Eliminate regulations, mandates and micromanagement of schools and focus instead on outcomes.

Expand options in education services, so that efficiencies, client services and customization become a higher priority.

Support and expand options like alternative programs, Running Start, skills centers, education centers, private schools, online programs and charter schools.
Expand inter-district choice.
Assure that funding may more easily follow the student.
Permit more public and private providers to offer education services, especially those requiring specialization and customization.

Fund what is necessary to correct glaring flaws and extraordinary cost-drivers of the monopoly system we have.

Make those expenditures necessary to shift to a results-focused funding system. Elements include providing for a data system, formative testing, teacher/principal evaluation system, school accountability system, alternatives for families, connecting expenditures to outcomes, and trading in archaic “prototypical school” ratios for a student-focused system.
Prohibit local bargaining on issues of wage and benefit enhancements from levy funds for state-funded employees.
Make sure that as state provision is enhanced, taxpayers are protected with reasonable limits on local levies.
Standardize fringe benefit costs paid by local districts and migrate pensions to a defined-contribution system rather than the risky defined-benefit system.
Assure transparency regarding actual uses of levy funds and state funds intended for non-employee-related costs.

Resources:

Proposed budget details

Return on Education Investment

Policy Highlighter: Court Strikes Down Adult-Focused Education Funding System

What the Supreme Court's Ruling on Basic Education Funding Means

Taxes for Educational Expenses

Study Shows "Staffing Surge" in WA Public Schools

Education Funding 10-11

$4 Billion More for Basic Education?

Governor's Budget: Taxes for Education

Thurston County vs City of Olympia - who manages public comment better?

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:47:00 PDT

Over the last few years I have been able to participate in making public comments at a variety of juristictions, at public hearings, and to state agencies. I’d like to compare how two different jurisdictions manage the public comment process in the hopes that some can improve how they operate. I have testified frequently in front of the Thurston County Commissioners and on occasion at The Olympia City Council. On many issues, I frequently disagree with these elected officials and their policies. However, the Olympia City Council has a substantially more citizen-friendly comment process than Thurston County.

When I was speaking in front of the Olympia City Council last night (and I had just testified a few hours earlier at the Thurston County Commissioner meeting), I was reflecting on these differences, and I wanted to outline them in the hopes that not just Thurston County could improve their public participation process, but also in the hope that other elected bodies can improve their public comment process as well.

At the City of Olympia, while there are sometimes presentations or proclamations at the beginning of their meetings, they usually get right to the public comment portion of the meeting quickly and very early in the agenda. This allows the public to testify early, have a clear idea of when they will be done, and the public is not forced to sit through presentations which may not interest them (even if they should). By contrast, Thurston County is famous for scheduling endless public proclamations, presentations by various preferred constituencies, dance demonstrations, and a host of other excuses to delay the public comment period for as long as possible. It is not uncommon for concerned citizens to sit through 45minutes of this before any public comment could begin. Thurston County could learn from the City of Olympia.

The City of Olympia has a “countdown” clock on the wall, which is easy for the person making public comment to see while they are speaking. This is superior and more public friendly than the green/yellow/red light system at Thurston County. This also reduces the number of people who run past their time.

The City of Olympia clearly makes an effort to respond to the public who make the effort to comment. They do this, even when they clearly disagree with the citizen who made the comment. Last night, at least one of the Olympia City councilmembers responded to all but one of the 11 people who had public comment. Even if their only response was to recognize that the person spoke and that they disagreed with them, the citizen who testifies is recognized. This is just good public relations and frankly good politics. The only person they didn’t officially respond to was the guy using Biblical numerology to predict the eruption of Mt. Rainier – and frankly, I’m not sure how anyone can respond to that. The Thurston County Commissioners, on the other hand, always hide behind their staff to get up and drone on endlessly in an effort to contradict everything that the public just finished saying during the public comment period. We have turned this into a spectator sport at times as we document the misleading statements made by staff, but this is really not an effective way of dealing with the public. At Thurston County, this sets up a hostile relationship even when it is completely unnecessary – it also makes the Thurston County Commissioners appear to be entirely out-of-touch with reality.

As I mentioned earlier, I am a frequent critic of both these jurisdictions and many of their policies. However, it is worth recognizing when your local government is doing something right, and while I know the City of Olympia has been doing this for several administrations now, I think Thurston County could learn a lot if they paid attention to this aspect of how the City of Olympia operates. The Thurston County Commissioners could learn quite a bit if they would just visit down the street.

Anybody who has ever worked in retail knows that it can be challenging to work with the general public. However, everyone realizes that you will have better success and it is easier if you have good customer service – even with the difficult folk in the community. For the elected official, they have to realize that for most people, it is an intimidating process to be up there making public comment - citizens deserve to be treated well even when you disagree with them. So, I hope this helps you look into how your local government treats citizens in the public comment process, and if you are an elected official you can review how you can improve the process you use where you are elected. Improvement is always possible, and everyone benefits.

Special Elections next week - a few to watch

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:07:00 PDT

There are a variety of local elections currently in process around the state. April 23, 2013 is the last day to get your ballot returned for these elections. The Secretary of State calls these elections “Special Elections,” and many of them are very special. Here are a handful which are worth watching no matter where you live in Washington State.

San Juan County County Council Elections – Due to a local initiative which passed in November 2012, which changed the county council from a strange and unique even number (six members) of County Councilmembers back to a three commissioner sized body, the citizens of this county have to vote on these new county council members. San Juan County also has the distinction of being the smallest charter council in the state. Passions are running high – mostly impacted by the very controversial and nonsensical CAO passed last year. This election is worth watching because the 2012 election replaced some sitting commissioners. Everything is up in the air. See this link for some of the controversy and history. You can also read about the candidates and other perspectives here and here. These elections matter because San Juan County is one of the many areas where the unintended harmful consequences of the GMA are being opposed and supported by large segments of the community.

Bonney Lake has a vote on a new Metropolitan Park District on the ballot. I wrote a story about the citizen’s group who is opposing this issue here. Both sides have an aggressive sign and public relations campaign in their community, and the results of this election could have an impact on other jurisdictions considering similar tax district approaches in their community. Read this article and visit both pro and con facebook sites.

The Battleground School District Levy. This levy already failed once in February, so this is round two. Sometimes school levy elections really do rock a community, and this one has serious organized groups on both sides of the issue. Our own Jami Lund wrote about it here. Read more about it here, here, here, and here. Although there is nothing unique about school levys, they don't fail very often, and it appears that a lot of local factors are impacting this election.

Every election matters. If you have received a ballot in the mail, make sure you study the issues, understand what is at stake, and return your ballot as quickly as possible. Every year thousands of voters fill out their ballots, wait until the last minute, and those completed ballots are still sitting on their counters or in their car long after the election has been decided. Make sure your vote counts.

If you are not voting, pay attention to the Freedom Foundation as we will be reporting on these and other less-noticed issues that are happening around our state.

Can trees grow without Central Planning?

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:00:00 PDT

How many government employees does it take to plant a tree?

It sounds like an old joke (the answer starts at five and grows from there), but it is a real question some of us have asked when we see the expansion of “Tree Ordinances” in local jurisdictions in Washington State. The City of Tukwila, for example, is exploring a tree ordinance consisting of many pages of make-work rules to manage every aspect of pruning, planting, protecting, removing, and enjoying trees and landscaping. The question, unanswered, of course, is how did the City of Tukwila become one of the most heavily treed cities (47% according to their “consultant” report) in Washington State without this critical, crucial, crises ordinance process to save our trees from ourselves? This is indeed a mystery nobody in the Tukwila government appears able to solve. However the citizens and elected officials of Tukwila still have the opportunity to avoid the tree ordinance fiasco which the Mercer Island City Council attempted to impose on their citizens (and which was impressively rejected by the residents in 2001).

Anyone who has ever enjoyed driving around some of the older neighborhoods of Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Spokane, Olympia, and other cities has been able to enjoy the wonderful landscaping located there– many of the trees are more than a century old. If you were to look back on photos from the late 1800s in most of these locations the ground was entirely barren before the homes were built. No hundred page tree ordinances with fees, fines, arborist requirements, or other complicated bureaucratic contortions existed at the time. Somehow, to our modern amazement – trees were planted and they grew without the Nanny State and Central Planners to micromanage the process. I’m sure this is a great mystery to the current Central Planners and naïve politicians who are writing, and passing these mostly worthless and pointless ordinances. It is something to ponder.

However, if what we are experiencing is “progess” then the “Progressives” have decided that trees can no longer grow on their own, and in fact we would all live in a barren wasteland devoid of plants, trees, and beautiful landscaping without their critical ordinances - despite overwhelming common sense observations to the contrary. At some point, like George Orwell’s memory hole from the novel 1984, the current Central Planners require the inconvenient fact that all those beautiful trees in all those old neighborhoods just somehow were planted, cultivated, and grew without Central Planning’s interference.

Unfortunately, what we are more likely to see with the proliferation of pointless, homogenous tree/landscaping ordinances provided by Central Casting at the American Planning Association (this is the group that provides the cookie-cutter planning documents for most of our planning departments), is the reduction in both variety of landscaping/tree planting results, and the tendency to force whatever the fad of the day might be upon our communities with little local control or individuality allowed. Secret, midnight pruning, and using the ordinance as the excuse to file complaints against neighbors are certain and well-documented outcomes.

My recommendation is to dump most aspects of these pointless tree ordinances. I’ve personally planted thousands of trees and dozens of varieties. I’ve also had to remove trees that were either unhealthy or becoming a problem where they were located. I am far from alone in this interest and activity, and miracle of miracles – nobody had to write a law to force me or most other people to do this. None of us need the Nanny State or Central Planning to tell us what to do. This is the cycle of life, and the beauty of landscaping and interacting with nature is that you can make it better now and for the future.

We do this because we enjoy watching the trees and plants grow, and if a community wants to encourage tree planting, they can do so without these ordinances. Use the history of Arbor Day as an inspiration on how you can get your community to plant trees without government harassment. Review your local ordinances to see what is restricted, "managed," or "permited" where you live. To the Nanny State and those who support it – please just leave us alone and let us plant and manage our trees without your interference. To the amazement of the Central Planners the trees really will grow without their ordinances.

Do we really need a tree ordinance to "manage" this?

Five Myths about Free Enterprise

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:47:00 PDT

This week I was cleaning out some of the articles I had bookmarked over the past year. I came across an article from Arthur Brooks at the American Enterprise Institute, a fellow non-profit organization: "Five Myths about Free Enterprise."

Written just before the peak of the 2012 election, this article addresses the bad wrap that free enterprise gets these days. Many people consider the free-enterprise system to be the source of our economic problems instead of a long-term solution.

To be honest, there are days when I've wondered that myself. But as I re-read this article, it proved to be just as relevant this week as it was during the 2012 election season. I was reminded that free enterprise has changed the way people live across the world. It's lifted millions out of poverty. It enables entrepreneurs to better their communities through new innovations and job opportunities. It allows people to find fulfillment in the professions and volunteer work they are passionate about.

"Free markets and entrepreneurship are driven not by greed but by earned success. For some people, earned success means business success, while for others, it means helping the poor, raising good kids, building a nonprofit, or making beautiful art — whatever allows people to create value in their lives and in the lives of others." - Arthur Brooks

Read about the "Five Myths of Free Enterprise here.

Are there any of these myths that you agree or disagree with? Leave us a comment to share your thoughts.

Tax Day Reminder: Restore the Two-Thirds

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:11:00 PDT

This morning on Tax Day, the Freedom Foundation delivered thousands of petition signatures to legislative leaders and Gov. Jay Inslee. The message was clear: respect and restore the 2/3 requirement for tax and fee increases.

It is fitting on this Tax Day to push back against arrogant government officials who continue to insist you’re not paying your fair share. This legislative session has seen proposals for a state income tax, 10-cents more per gallon in gas taxes, a new tax on plastic bags, much higher taxes on beer, and big B&O tax hikes.

Washington state voters have tried—over and over again—to put a check on legislative power by requiring supermajority votes in the State House and Senate to increase taxes or fees. Last month, the Washington State Supreme Court threw out that check. The Court said that if voters want to make it harder to raise taxes, they must get legislators to agree (either by persuasion or by electing different legislators).

The Freedom Foundation launched our petition drive to send this message loud and clear to legislators: respect and restore the 2/3 requirement. That means abiding by it in the current budget negotiations: no revenue increases should be adopted unless 2/3 of legislators agree with them. More importantly, it means passing a state constitutional amendment (which sends it to voters for ratification) that would put this reasonable check on government power into our State Constitution.

The Freedom Foundation won’t let go of this issue, and we hope you won’t either. It is up to the people to hold government officials accountable. It is up to us to educate the people around us—many of whom have already voted in favor of the 2/3 requirement—about the next steps necessary to respect and restore that law.

City of Olympia votes itself incompetent

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:27:00 PDT

Earlier this week, the Olympia City Council voted to approve the hiring of an outside consultant (up to $105,000) to determine how much and which parts of the City of Olympia is “blighted.” Clearly, they believe nobody who lives in Olympia (and certainly nobody on the Olympia City Council) knows the city well enough to determine just how “blighted” the city is right now. To this day, nobody can even define what “blight” means. The gullible are just led to believe that some outsiders can spend $100,000+ to tell the local yokels what part of the city so that bureaucrats can use the power of eminent domain to take property (private or public). Of course, it is all for the greater good.

Keep in mind, the only way a local government can use eminent domain for economic development purposes in Washington State is to exploit the “Kelo Loophole” provided in the Community Renewal Act. The Freedom Foundation has advocated closing the “Kelo Loophole” because we do not believe that it is appropriate for any government to reward selected (politically connected) private businesses or developers at the expense of other landowners and at great cost to the taxpayers. This is also a great tool to create the environment for corruption – on both the property being “condemned” and for the inevitable purchaser or tenant of the targeted property. Some politically connected people may benefit, but everyone else loses.

Look at Item 4.D on this link for the $105,000 RFQ and the initial $80,000 contract. Also look at the included video starting at about 46 minutes (you can scroll to that point) and view the discussion. A few things to note:

1. It appears that the City Council tried to sneak this item through on a “consent” agenda – which means “no discussion.” Normally, "consent" items are non-controversial and mundane issues. Many people, including this author had testified against this waste of taxpayer dollars in the past, so there was hardly consent.

2. Note Councilwoman Rogers discussion of the history of this contract. There are two good items of note. First, this $105,000 is just the beginning of the cost for this project. Secondly, the original “project” (apparently initiated by a request from a former city council member) justifying this effort no longer appears to exist. Why are they still doing it? Good question.

3. Another note for background here – the Olympia City Council has a justified reputation for harming local business in as many ways as they can invent. Higher taxes, higher fees, confusing and complicated regulations, ignoring local business concerns, etc. Now, they seem perplexed as to why the City of Olympia’s businesses are struggling? Rather than restrain the budget growth or regulatory stranglehold on the local businesses – this city council immediately finds a way to spend more limited dollars on outside consultants.

Another background item worth noting is that this City Council also recently convinced tax payers to increase the local sales tax again last November. I co-wrote the Con Statement (page12) in the 2012 Voter’s Guide along with some other concerned residents, but it did pass. So, apparently last year, the City was on the verge of slipping into lawlessness and social collapse without the sales tax increase. Now that the city obtained their tax increase, the City of Olympia is happy to spend over $100,000 trying to pay outsiders to define, discover, and invent “blight” so that the City of Olympia can bring back some of the business they have chased away with their policies. This is the logic of Big Government on a small, Olympian sized scale.

Previously, in Olympia:

Dancing away in Olympia - http://www.myfreedomfoundation.com/blog/detail/olympia-city-council-dances-on-the-taxpayers-nickel

New Labor Policy Analyst: Max Nelsen

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:55:00 PDT

The Freedom Foundation is pleased to introduce our newest team member, Maxford Nelsen. Max joined the Freedom Foundation as the Labor Policy Analyst and will help create the awareness necessary to end union officials’ ability to overcharge for representation and to take advantage of employees. He will also be researching the ways union officials use their government-granted monopoly to dominate public policy and make government larger, more costly and less accountable.

Max is a native of Silverdale, Washington. He recently graduated from Whitworth University in Spokane where he earned a bachelor’s degree in political science. He joins the Foundation with a great history of academic achievements in debate and journalism as well as experience in public policy. During college, Max was an opinions editor for The Whitworthian newspaper and interned at The Heritage Foundation. Most recently he worked for the Washington Policy Center, first as an intern and then as a development assistant.

It is an exciting time for Max to join the team at the Freedom Foundation due to the recent national news about labor reform across the nation. He believes we have the potential to change labor policy in Washington State, too.

“If significant reforms can be made in historic union strongholds like Wisconsin and Michigan, there is no inherent reason why similar progress cannot be made in Washington as well. However, the path to achieving that reform will be unique to our state. Reforming labor policy will require getting citizens, lawmakers, the press, and even union members to realize the negative impact current labor policy has on each of them. My job is to help bring this information to light and communicate it persuasively,” says Max.

The Freedom Foundation looks forward to tackling labor reform in the near future with new momentum and the refreshing perspective that Max brings to the table.

Maxford Nelsen may be reached by email at mnelsen@myfreedomfoundation.org.

Pension spiking: defrauding taxpayers in slow motion

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:54:00 PDT

Government pensions allow today's politicians to heap liabilities on tomorrow's taxpayers. Nowhere is this more evident than when politicians and workers collude to lock in dramatically inflated pension payments. They do this under contracts that set pension payments based on a worker's final salary. Hike that last pay check and pension payments are increased--for life. It's called "pension spiking."

Earlier this week, the Associated Press released an investigative report into pension spiking in Washington State. For example, Russ Prichard's salary was increased 57.5 percent right before he retired as North Highline Fire Chief in 2006. His pension--about $14,000 per month--is higher than his regular salary before the final pay hike.

Even some fans of big government find such practices beyond the pale. Far-left Mother Jones magazine has weighed in against pension spiking.

Anyone who's serious about pension abuse should focus like a laser on spiking. Unions are wrong to defend it, and if Democratic politicians back them up on it, then they deserve all the public abuse that Republicans are able to hang on them. It's a bad practice and an indefensible one, and it ought to be an easy bipartisan target.

Yet pension spiking is simply a symptom. The private sector has moved away from "defined benefit" plans, which lock in payments for life, and moved to "defined contribution" retirement plans. These give individual employees ownership and control over their own retirement, protecting employer and employee alike. Yet in much of government, employees remain in "defined benefit" plans with guaranteed payouts for life. Pension spiking is the natural result of letting politicians make promises today that come due in future decades.

Some California cities are already in bankruptcy thanks to pension shenanigans, while other cities have solved the problem by switching to defined contribution plans.

The passing of Margaret Thatcher

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:18:00 PDT

She was the most powerful woman in the world, ever, and she was a conservative. The Soviets dubbed her "The Iron Lady," a title she embraced. Together with her friend Ronald Reagan, she helped expose the political, economic, and moral weakness of Marxism. The walls came down.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died this morning. She left a legacy. Rising from obscurity, she challenged the assumptions of her time and place. She changed both Britain and the world, not merely by being right, but by working and thinking hard about how to defend freedom and free markets.

A few years ago, the Hoover Institution's Peter Robinson interviewed Claire Berlinski, author of a book subtitled: "Why Margaret Thatcher Matters." The video of that session well answers the question.

Sexual orientation conversion bill just another encroachment on parental rights

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:12:00 PDT

It would be nice to think his House colleagues were merely being polite yesterday in granting Rep. Marko Lias a hearing on his sexual orientation conversion bill. But a similar measure is close to passage in New Jersey and California already has a law on its books preventing parents from sending their children to a psychologist to convert them from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

Lias says it may be appropriate for Washington to consider similar legislation, and you get the idea he’s nowhere near as ambivalent about it as he’d like you to believe.

Lias, who is gay himself, insists sexual orientation conversion efforts (SOCE) are never successful and can cause irreparable harm to youngsters who are simply expressing their natural inclinations. Most mainstream medical organizations tend to agree, but those groups are not immune to ideological bias and their prouncements ignore the wealth of anecdotal evidence from people of all ages who have undergone the therapy and claim it works.

Whether or not it does, however, is entirely beside the point. What’s really at stake here is the question of who gets to decide what’s best for kids, their parents or lawmakers?

Lias and his co-sponsors — who include at least three other openly gay legislators — paint a horriying portrait of parents so blinded by their hatred of homosexuality that they’re willing to risk hurting their own children in the vain hope of changing them. What that stance totally ignores is the question of whether Lias and the others have an agenda of their own.

And they unquestionably do. It’s only natural someone who’s spent a lifetime trying to de-stigmatize homosexuality would resent the notion it’s a medical problem that can be cured. But while researchers have no clear idea why small number of humans are inclined to homosexuality while the vast majority aren’t, it’s hard to imagine there’s no psychological component at all.

No one’s suggesting, as one person testifying in favor of Lias’s bill yesterday accused, that homosexuality can be beaten out of a person. But anyone who thinks teenagers are never confused about their sexuality and couldn’t possibly benefit from a visit to a responsible counselor in order to sort out their feelings has never had one.

The question isn’t whether there are irresponsible parents. There are, just as there are grandstanding, agenda-driven politicians. The issue, again, is who gets to decide.

By any reasonable standard, the benefit of the doubt should go to the parent.

Media gets it right on prevailing wage

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:50:00 PDT

Should taxpayers be forced to pay more and get less when it comes to public works? That's the current policy choice made in both Washington and Oregon. It's called "prevailing wage," but what it is is a "super minimum wage" that artificially inflates the price tag for public works. That means taxpayers either pay a lot more or get a lot less--or both.

Today, The Columbian editorial board challenges the concept of prevailing wage.

Local residents need look no further than the massive Columbia River Crossing project to see the impact of our state's outdated prevailing wage laws. Costs are forced up by as much as 30 percent. A more competitive process would give taxpayers more bang for their buck.

The newspaper salutes efforts to reform current law, but correctly points out that repeal is the solution that makes the most sense.

In February, The Oregonian agreed that prevailing wage is both unnecessary and costly, citing a study from California.

The big -- and hotly debated -- problem is cost. When you force contractors working on public projects to pay super-minimum wages, it stands to reason that the price tag will be bigger. Researchers at the University of California Berkeley examined the effect of 2001 legislation applying that state's prevailing wage to workers on subsidized housing projects for low-income people. Their 2005 study estimated that the move raised costs anywhere from 9 percent to 37 percent, depending upon the statistical model used.

When you raise costs, you end up doing less with the same amount of money. Using a mid-range cost increase (about 25 percent), the researchers estimated that the prevailing wage reduced the number of housing units built by more than 3,100.

The Freedom Foundation has long pointed out that prevailing wage laws discriminate against private sector workers, overcharge taxpayers, and short change infrastructure users.

Economic future dubious says Forecast Council

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:43:00 PDT

Washington State's Economic Revenue Forecast Council released their March update today, predicting weak growth and a greater chance things will get worse rather than better.

They point out that Europe's government debt crisis is a threat to our economy, though they neglect to mention the threat posed by our own government debts and unfunded liabilities. Likewise, the Council recognizes "threats to world oil supplies also pose risks," but neglects to consider the risks posed by our own government policies that interfere with access to affordable energy.

The bottom line prediction is slightly less revenue to the general fund* in the next budget period (July 2013 through June 2015), down $19 million to $32,541.4 million.

In related news, the State Department of Revenue released it's final numbers for 2012 sales tax revenues, showing a statewide increase of 5.6% from the last quarter of 2011. Looking at the ten counties with taxable retail sales over $500 million, the big winners were Skagit and Yakima counties with increases over 8%. Lagging far behind was Thurston County, which was barely better than flat.

*The general fund includes state operating funds derived from state taxes, rather than designated funds or revenues from federal programs.

Freedom Win: Inslee turns over documents

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:18:00 PDT

The Freedom Foundation scored an important victory for government transparency this week when Gov. Jay Inslee’s office released to the public several documents that his predecessor, Gov. Gregoire, had claimed must be protected by “executive privilege.” Our full press release is available here.

As you may recall, we have been fighting this issue for years now, including presenting arguments in front of the Washington State Supreme Court last September. Citizens, journalists, and open government allies from all over the state have expressed their support for our legal fight to hold the Governor’s office accountable to the state’s transparency laws. Specifically, the ACLU, the Institute for Justice, the Washington Coalition for Open Government, the National Freedom of Information Coalition, Allied Daily Newspapers, and the Washington Newspaper Publisher’s Association filed briefs in support of our case, while large newspapers such as The Seattle Times, The Olympian, and The Spokesman Review all published editorials favoring our principled stand.

Through our work on this issue the Freedom Foundation and our allies have put officials on notice that Washingtonians are willing to fight to ensure open and transparent government. It’s clear that our message has gotten through to Gov. Inslee – since he took office in January, he has not invoked executive privilege to hide public records, and his release of the documents we requested demonstrates his willingness to reject the policies put in place under Gov. Gregoire.

Milton Friedman once said that we have the challenge of creating a political climate that compels even government officials who might disagree with us on many issues to do the right thing. This breaking news about Gov. Inslee’s repudiation of “executive privilege” is proof that we are making strides in the right direction. We hope that you will help us continue to build momentum on this issue, as well as on the other issues in which the Freedom Foundation is working to secure that government in this state remains accountable to the people.

Executive Privilege Documents Released

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:16:00 PDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 4, 2013

OLYMPIA — The Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based think tank promoting fiscal responsibility and transparency in government, scored an important victory Tuesday evening when Gov. Jay Inslee’s office rejected his predecessor’s dubious claims of executive privilege and provided the Foundation with six documents that Gov. Christine Gregoire had for years fought to keep hidden.

From January 2007 to April 2011, Gov. Gregoire attempted to evade more than 500 public records requests by claiming that her office was not bound by state laws requiring disclosure. In 2011 the Freedom Foundation filed a lawsuit demanding the governor’s office release several of these records.

The Freedom Foundation fought the case from Thurston County Superior Court to the Washington State Supreme Court, which heard arguments last September. As the Foundation argued, transparency must extend even to the Governor’s office. Legal briefs supporting the Foundation’s position were filed by diverse allies including the Allied Daily Newspapers, Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, National Freedom of Information Coalition, American Civil Liberties Union, Institute for Justice and Washington Coalition for Open Government.

Leading up to the Supreme Court arguments, newspapers all over the state, including the Seattle Times, The Olympian and The Spokesman Review, issued editorials supporting the Freedom Foundation.

Prior to the November election, The Olympian reported that candidate Inslee pledged to not invoke executive privilege to block the release of records. Since taking office earlier this year, Gov. Inslee has made good on that pledge. His release of the documents at issue in the Foundation’s case is also consistent with his statement during the campaign.

“I am pleased to see Governor Inslee keep his word and not invoke a privilege that does not exist,” said Jonathan Bechtle, CEO of the Freedom Foundation.

“Due to the support from people and media all over the state,” he said, “it’s clear we are showing the way forward toward a more transparent government.”

###

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact:

Jessica Bowman

Policy Outreach Specialist

P.O. BOX 552 | OLYMPIA, WA 98507
Office: 360.956.3482|
myfreedomfoundation.org | JBowman@MyFreedomFoundation.org

This time, it could be the other side wielding the Ninth Order

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:23:00 PDT

There figures to be a fair amount of drama in the Washington State Senate’s Health Care Committee hearing this morning, where the agenda includes discussion of a bill that would require all employer-provided health insurance plans to include abortion services.

But the real fireworks could come later, after the committee takes its vote.

Republicans, who view HB-1044 as an infringement of an employer’s right of conscience, outnumber Democrats 5-4 on the committee, so no one is expecting the measure to win approval at that level. And under normal circumstances, that would be enough to kill it for this year.

But remember, Republicans last year exploited a little-used parliamentary gimmick known as the Ninth Order to bring the GOP budget to a floor vote in the Senate — even though it, too, had seemingly been killed in committee. The key was convincing three Democrats, including Sens. Rodney Tom (D-Bellevue) and Tim Sheldon (D-Potlatch) to vote with the Republicans.

What some are wondering is whether the Democrats could use the same tactic in reverse this year to resurrect the abortion bill — and others that didn’t make it out of GOP-run Senate committees this year.

All it would take is to flip Tom and Sheldon back. And since both actually are Democrats, who profess to be fiscal conservatives but moderate on social issues, it wouldn’t be out of character for either to support an abortion bill. In fact, it might mend fences with their fellow Democrats.

On the other hand, one would at least hope that, having used the same tactic a year ago, Republicans anticipated this gambit and have a handshake deal with Tom and Sheldon to hold the line on social issues, too.

Defections by Tom and Sheldon could potentially fracture the tenuous Majority Coalition that currently holds a 25-24 advantage over the Democrats in the Senate — the only branch of Washington state government in which Republicans are even nominally in charge.

We’ll know soon enough whether that’s a possibility, but it’s worth noting the Republicans waited until uncharacteristically late in the session to hear the bill in committee. That could indicate they aren’t sure they have the votes to kill it on the floor and they’re buying time in hopes the abortion bill either gets lost in all the budget discussions or becomes a bargaining chip they can trade for economic concessions elsewhere.

When Do Rights Become Rights?

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:21:00 PDT

The question of who should be able to get married to whom is not within the scope of the Freedom Foundation's mission; I want to be clear that we express no opinion whatsoever on that matter.

That said, yesterday's argument at the U.S. Supreme Court raised an important constitutional question that I feel I should address.

One of the sharpest exchanges during yesterday's argument involved Justice Anonin Scalia pressing attorney Ted Olson, who was arguing that same sex marriage is constitutionally protected, to explain when, in Olsen's opinion, that protection began. The gist of Scalia's question was that if courts have previously failed to recognize a right or if they have refused to take seriously arguments that a right exists, then it is absurd to argue that the right has somehow sprung into existence. Scalia also generally holds to the perspective that a constitutional provision should be applied as it would have been applied by the people who ratified it; giving him a date when a constitutional right "materialized" would allow him to assess whether the people at that time would have tolerated same sex marriages.

Olson committed a severe breach of courtroom ettiquette by responding to Scalia's question with two questions of his own: "When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?"

Scalia chided Olson for this, but he did answer by saying that those things became unconstitutional at the time the Equal Protection Clause was adopted as part of the Fourteenth Amendment. For the next couple of minutes, the justice and the attorney bickered about this matter, but Olson never did directly answer Scalia's question. Ultimately and somewhat ambiguously, he suggested that questions of constitutionality are "an evolutionary cycle."

This was both the wrong question and the wrong answer.

A proper understanding of constitutional theory recognizes that those who agree to the terms of the constitutions they ratify could never hope to anticipate every future situation that might be impacted by the words they ratify. The purpose of a constitution is to identify and secure certain principles of government, including its limits. In reading and applying constitutional provisions, we should strive to understood the meaning of the words themselves as their ratifiers would have understood them, and to apply the general principles expressed according to that meaning. But that approach is very different from asking what the people who adopted a general principle might have thought about a situation that they never could have anticipated.

To illustrate this position, let's look at the Second Amendment. One of the arguments we frequently hear from gun control advocates is that the people who adopted the Second Amendment never anticipated a world with machine guns, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs. Surely the Framers only intended for citizens to have muskets for hunting and for use in the militia - they never would have allowed civilians to own the sort of state-of-the-art weaponry now used by our military!

This is an absurd argument because it looks beyond the simple, general principle expressed in the amendment and instead makes assumptions about how people in one time might have thought about circumstances they never could have anticipated.

It is entirely appropriate to look at the words of the Second Amendment and to try to discern what principle the framers intended to protect. So we ask the correct questions when we say, "What did the word militia mean in 1791? What did the phrase "keep and bear arms" mean to those who ratified the amendment? What is the general principle established by the meaning of those words and phrases?" It can even be useful to question why the people thought such a provision was necessary. It misses the mark, however, to ask, "Would James Madison have wanted housewives to walk around carrying AR-15s?"

Justice Scalia knows that the Equal Protection clause was ratified in 1868, and he also knows that there is no real confusion about what the term "equal protection of the laws" means because that phrase has been applied again and again over the years. The implication of his question, then, was that if the people in 1868 would not have foreseen that the Equal Protection clause might be applied in a certain way, then courts are precluded from applying it in that way. More directly, Scalia's question implied that if a right has not been explicitly anticipated and incorporated into the Constitution, it does not exist.

Regardless of what one thinks about the question of same-sex marriage, Scalia's position is very troubling.

The political philosophy that undergirds the American constitutional system of government depends on the idea that individual rights are inherent and unalienable. As Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, we hold as self-evident the truth that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That means that when we added the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, we were merely recognizing pre-existing, natural rights - adding them to the Constituiton did not and could not create them. We adopted the First Amendment because we have the right freely to express ourselves and to freely exercise our religions - we do not have the right to freely express ourselves and freely exercise our religion because we adopted the First Amendment.

This holds true for rights that were not always part of our Constitutional system. For example, it took a long time for Americans to recognize that slavery is a deep, moral evil, but slavery did not suddenly become unjust and improper when we adopted the Thirteenth Amendment - it had always been evil. Similarly, the right to enjoy the same legal protections as are afforded your fellow citizens is a principle that pre-existed the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is why I believe that Scalia was wrong to imply that the date on which words were added to a piece of paper resolves any sort of question about the application of the principle that those words embody.

At the same time Olson's answer was deeply troubling. It is true that our understanding of and respect for individual rights may "evolve," but the principles themselves are static. Think of it in terms of the laws of physics: Gravity did not come into being when Newton first developed his universal theory of gravitation, and the way that gravity works has not changed even as later scientists have refined their understanding of this natural force. Olson's statement that constitutional rights are "an evolutionary cycle" implies that new natural rights simply spring out of nothingness - a position that suggests no limits to what people might eventually deem to be a "right." If Olson wanted to offer a constitutionally sound response to Scalia's question, he should have first stated that equality before the law is a timeless principle that did not depend on the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to justify citizens' efforts to secure this right in the courts, then tried to persuade Scalia that the laws in question deny Olson's clients that sort of equality before the law.

Again, the Freedom Foundation is not taking a position on how the Court should respond to the question of whether denying one the ability to marry someone of the same gender constitutes a failure to provide equal protection of the laws - but I do think the justices and attorneys should be using the proper approach to constitutional interpretation as they approach this question.

Response to Treasurer McIntire on Pension Accounting

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:09:00 PDT

Last week, The Seattle Times published an op ed by Washington State Treasurer James McIntire on the state pension plan. McIntire claims that the current state pension plan works and does not need to be changed or replaced.

Here is The Freedom Foundation's reply, written by Andrew G. Biggs:

Response to McIntire on Washington pension accounting

by Andrew G. Biggs, Ph.D.

In a recent opinion piece, Washington Treasurer James L. McIntire takes on the contentious debate over how public employee pensions should value the benefits owed by to future retirees. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Under current government accounting rules, these benefits are “discounted” using the 7.75 percent rate that Washington plans assume they will earn on their investments. By this standard, Washington plans are almost fully funded.

By contrast, a movement for “fair market valuation” argues that, because public pension benefits are guaranteed, they should be valued using lower yields paid on safe government bonds. Under these rules, Washington pensions are only around 50 percent funded and unfunded liabilities would be $50 billion.

Mr. McIntire makes what many pension advocates consider to be an airtight argument against fair market valuation: using a “riskless” discount rate, he says, “is the wrong way to assess the funding status of a public pension system or the contributions necessary to offset future liabilities, unless the intent is to force the pension fund to invest exclusively in Treasury or municipal bonds.”

But fair market valuation doesn’t assume pensions invest only in bonds. Rather, it simply points out that while pension investments in stocks and private equity are risky, benefits are guaranteed by law. As the federal government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has stated, “If the assets of a defined-benefit plan are insufficient to pay promised benefits, the plan sponsor must cover the shortfall.” Fair market valuation captures this $50 billion “contingent liability,” while current accounting rules literally ignore it.

Despite common claims about investing for the “long term,” there is a significant chance of a plan’s investments falling short. And, as Washington’s state actuaries have pointed out, “Weak economic environments were correlated with weak investment returns. Lower investment returns created the need for increased contributions at a time when employers and members could least afford them.”

Beginning this year, the National Income and Product Accounts, which the BEA compiles, will measure public pension liabilities using fair market valuation. This means that liabilities as reported by Washington's pension plans will now be inconsistent with the official ledger books of the United States government and economy.

The way to fully capture public pension liabilities is to discount those future benefits using an interest rate that matches the risk of the benefits themselves, not the risk of investments used to fund those benefits. As the Congressional Budget Office stated last year, “because the risk to future payments to beneficiaries is generally much less than the risk to the returns on typical assets held by pension plans, standard financial principles of valuation suggest that future benefit payments be discounted at a lower rate… By accounting for the different risks associated with investment returns and benefit payments, the fair-value approach provides a more complete and transparent measure of the costs of pension obligations...” More complete and more transparent: isn’t that what we should aim for?

Donald Kohn, then-vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, put it more simply: “While economists are famous for disagreeing with each other on virtually every other conceivable issue, when it comes to this one there is no professional disagreement: The only appropriate way to calculate the present value of a very-low-risk liability is to use a very-low-risk discount rate.” The late MIT economist Franco Modigliani won a Nobel Prize in part for showing this to be true.

In October 2012, the University of Chicago found that 98 percent of professional economists surveyed agreed with the following statement: “By discounting pension liabilities at high interest rates under government accounting standards, many U.S. state and local governments understate their pension liabilities and the costs of providing pensions to public-sector workers.” None disagreed.

Similarly, the bond ratings agency Moody’s will now value public pension liabilities using a corporate bond yield, similar to the way in which private pensions are measured. Even this could be considered generous: most public employee plans abroad must value their liabilities using lower discount rates to reflect the fact that they are safer than private pensions.

One might say that on pension accounting rules, opinion is divided: public pension advocates believe one thing while practically everyone else – expert economists, non-partisan government agencies, bond rating agencies and public pensions in other countries – believes differently.

Fair market valuation doesn’t say that pensions can’t invest in stocks. It merely says funding guaranteed benefits with risky assets passes a contingent liability onto future taxpayers. And when you’re passing liabilities of any kind onto future generations, you can’t seriously call yourself fully funded.

Andrew G. Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. and the former principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration. He is the author of a 2011 report for the Freedom Foundation, “Reforming Washington State Pensions.”

Reforming Washington State Pensions by Andrew G. Biggs, Ph.D.

Op-Ed: State pension plan works, does not need fixing by James L. McIntire

Indiana Supreme Court: Private Education Vouchers Constitutional

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:32:00 PDT

Today another Court decision affirms that school vouchers do not violate constitutional provisions related to establishing religion or those related to uniform schooling.

Indiana Supreme Court ruled:

“We first find it inconceivable that the framers and ratifiers intended to expansively prohibit any and all government expenditures from which a religious or theological institution derives a benefit—for example, fire and police protection, municipal water and sewage service, sidewalks and streets, and the like. Certainly religious or theological institutions may derive relatively substantial benefits from such municipal services. But the primary beneficiary is the public, both the public affiliated with the religious or theological institution, and the general public.”

“The plaintiffs assert . . . that the voucher program "substantially" benefits these schools financially and by "promot[ing] these schools' religious mission" by adding to their enrollment students who otherwise would not be able to afford the tuition. We disagree because the principal actors and direct beneficiaries under the voucher program are neither the State nor program-eligible schools, but lower-income Indiana families with school-age children.

The direct beneficiaries under the voucher program are the families of eligible students and not the schools selected by the parents for their children to attend. The voucher program does not directly fund religious activities because no funds may be dispersed to any program-eligible school without the private, independent selection by the parents of a program-eligible student.”

At issue in this case is a kind of Constitutional provision, now called a "Blaine Amendment," in many states which was from an era of strong anti-Catholic sentiment. It is named for

Indiana’s ‘Blaine Amendment’ is quite broad:

“Section 6 No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.”

Washington State’s ‘Blaine Amendment’ is a bit more focused:

“Section 11 . . . No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment”

The ruling is important for the country, for if we are to expand education options for families, the many schools started for reasons of faith should not be excluded from consideration. In the world of an educational monopoly, where private school families must pay for education twice, the institutions which are motivated by charity to offer schooling are more numerous than other options.

The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that voucher programs do not violate the First Amendment prohibition on the government establishment of religion. Zellman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002

Tax Credits

Sidestepping this issue altogether is the idea of offering a Business and Occupation tax credit for contributions to scholarship-granting charities. I have written before about how scholarship tax credits could make a lot of sense for Washington state, since the funds never reach the public treasury.

Today in Washington, one in fifteen students is enrolled in a private education program. Nearly all of those selecting private education are wealthy; specialized education is not readily available to the poor.

All legal challenges have been rebuffed.

Why not share the work of education with approved providers?

Independent schools in Washington capacity for thousands of additional students, yet only one third of those who apply for need-based scholarships receive them.

Enabling low-income students to select education outside of the public system also frees state resources for education or other state spending priorities. Each student transferring to an approved provider saves the state’s usual expenditure of $6,300. A net savings of $20 to 60 million is possible in the 13-15 budget. Long term savings are measured in hundreds of millions before even counting the cost of new school buildings.

Competition works better than a monopoly.

Numerous randomized-controlled studies have demonstrated that students in choice programs have higher academic performance. Other improved measures of performance include:

Finally, as advocates for freedom and market forces, we cannot ignore that the introduction of competition restores motivation for public school improvement. At last, the family and student is the central point rather than funding and a system of defined program inputs. The state would not need to design a clunky standardized teacher evaluation system if many kinds of customized schools existed--teachers and students could vote with their feet.

When will the customization we expect in all other parts of our lives become a reality in something as important as education?

Return on Education Investment

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:39:00 PDT

As a state funding system, we don’t relate spending to outcomes. We don’t even relate spending to the various claimed goals of education.

With the attention soon to turn to the budget and funding the education services of the state, Lawmakers should pause and consider the path Washington state is on regarding the education funding system. I’ve participated in six years’ worth of education funding studies, and I’ve been dismayed at how all recommendations--dreamed up those inside the monopoly system--serve the interests of adults rather than the interests of students.

I understand that adults employed in institutions want a guaranteed funding steam for static institutions designed in Olympia, but today’s world is achieving greater service through customization. While other states are moving toward student-based funding, flexibility and focus on results, Washington state has adopted a scheme of extreme focus on inputs called the "prototypical school funding system."

The prototypical school funding system takes a step even further into the one-size-fits-all factory model of education. It guarantees funding for a certain number of each kind of employee, even if those positions are obsolete or new technology changes the nature of the workload. It takes the "old" "outdated" funding system and makes it even more complex and draconian in perscription about funding the factory.

The Center for American Progress offers the chart below which shows how our state funding is completely disconnected from learning results in Washington State.

Each dot represents a district in Washington state. Those in the "northwest" corner are producing above average results with below-average resources. She points out that if funding levels were targeted on factors producing learning, all districts would be in a line with only low-funded districts producing low achievement results. Instead there is no pattern.

Are you curious which dot represents your school district? Isn't it interesting that most citizens and perhaps even most school board members don't know whether they are getting the optimal results for their funds? To see this chart in a way that lets you know which district is which dot, check out the interactive report (choose the state of Washington) here.

The move to prototypical schools does nothing to address these results, and does nothing to incentivize districts to move northwest on this chart.