LibertyLive Blog

Cajoling Career Pathways

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:27:09 PST

HB 2170 “The Careers Pathways Act” is moving in the legislative process and has been funded in the House Democrats proposed budget at $410,000.

It has the unmistakable fingerprints of the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board staff—specifically, language which suggests that government is a benevolent facilitator of ideals. Government just needs to “encourage,” “facilitate,” or “promote” good ideas as if it is some kind of kindly but meddlesome aunt.

Those constructing government programs from this perspective are particularly bad at putting nouns and verbs together regarding government action.

What these bill drafters do not get is that the state is merely force. There is no cajoling, encouraging, marketing, facilitating or emphasizing. There is only using armed law enforcement officers to take money by force and to give it to public employees to carry out identified tasks in the public interest.

When those tasks are enforcing criminal law, providing for infrastructure, or providing for education services, the nouns and verbs of the law are clear. But the “kindly aunt” approach to government dictates are all kinds of squishy. Check the phrases from the bill below to see what I mean.

Vague purposes for public employee duties are useless. When is someone done “coordinating?” How is the success of “facilitating” measured for the taxpayers? Let charities, employer organizations, employee organization and professions do these things. Why should the state do it poorly and expensively? And why should the state be involved in managing the economy and picking winners and losers among firms?

The dictates of HB 2170

Lofty intent:
“Facilitate opportunities”
“create structures to encourage”
“make career exploration a routine part of instruction”
“better inform parents”
“continually emphasize”
“the goal of increasing the percentage of Washington households living in the middle income is adopted”

Key agencies information “must include information about career pathways in their communications and materials.”

What do these state employee job descriptions look like?
(I have described skepticism about the need for this agency before.)

“shall identify a sample of online tools that . . . create a summary list . . . publicize”

“shall work with . . . to develop a program” “shall inform the legislature if . . . support is not available for this purpose and may recommend that matching support if necessary”

“shall develop a graphic advertisement . .”

“shall develop criteria and an application process for designating regional coordinators for partnership zones [however] Partnership and collaborative activities under a partnership zone are voluntary and intended to benefit all partners.”

Thanks auntie, we’ll keep that in mind.

“The state education and workforce agencies shall work together to ensure that programs . . . operate seamlessly . . . “

“School districts are encourage to use a curriculum . . . [vocational exploration]

“School districts are encouraged to have . . . students develop a high school and beyond plan that includes at least the following components and activities to be completed by each student”

“All public high schools are encouraged to offer . . .”

“the Professional Educators Standards Board . . . must revise the standards to the extent necessary . . . to include such [contextualized learning] skills and knowledge.

“Institutions of higher education are encouraged to offer career counseling to all students . . . should include the following . . .”

Thrown in the bill for good measure . . .
The bill also tacks on a requirement that the Workforce Board employees recommend that the legislature pass the legislation on state-funded Lifelong Learning Accounts.

Tell WA Legislators: “Do Your Job!”

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:31:27 PST

Days passed with a broken budget: 160 Days and counting

Total state debt: $83.2 Billion

Current budget deficit: $1.6 billion

Those numbers can be pretty astonishing. When you consider that our state budget should be a top priority for our elected leaders, it’s both amazing and disappointing that legislators couldn’t (or wouldn’t) get the job done in two specials sessions last year. Now, they are dragging their feet during the current session by focusing their attention on less-critical legislation.

We’ve been patient long enough. It’s time for legislators to Do Their Jobs! You can help us send that message by signing our petition and then forwarding it on to your friends and family for them to do the same.

Enough of the games. Enough of the gimmicks. It’s time for Washington politicians to do the job people sent them to Olympia to do.

Click Here To Sign The Petition!

Could pharmacy ‘conscientious objector’ ruling be applied to same-sex marriage law?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:06:24 PST

It would be deliciously ironic if Washington’s same-sex marriage law—liberalism’s most recent monument to tolerance—were actually undone by the intolerance of its authors. And while that’s not necessarily likely to happen, a court decision reached this week offers a clear blueprint for how it could.

To review, Washington’s euphemistically titled “Marriage Equality Act” was signed into law by Gov. Gregoire earlier this month and could go into effect by December, pending the outcome of an almost certain voter initiative to overturn it this fall. In the meantime, however, a federal judge in Tacoma issued a ruling on Wednesday in a seemingly unrelated case that addresses many of the same objections gay marriage opponents did in their unsuccessful battle.

In the latter case, Stormans Inc. v. Selecky, Judge Ronald B. Leighton ruled that a 2007 Washington law requiring all pharmacies to dispense so-called “Morning-After” birth control pills was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment rights of those who refused to sell the product on religious grounds.

To paraphrase, Leighton ruled that the pharmacists shouldn’t be forced to choose between earning a living and exercising their constitutionally protected rights to religious freedom. And by a strange coincidence, that’s precisely the argument many lawmakers were trying to make last week when they attempted to attach an amendment to the same-sex marriage bill that would protect independent contractors such as photographers and caterers from lawsuits if they refused to work at gay weddings because of religious or philosophical objections.

Backers of the bill killed that amendment, however, arguing that no such provision was needed or warranted even though similar lawsuits have been filed on just that basis in other states that have legalized gay marriage. But in their eagerness to show how tolerant they are of a behavior they don’t object to in the first place, same-sex marriage supporters may have embedded a fatal flaw in the statute by completely disregarding the principled—and constitutionally protected—objections of those who see the world differently.

Again, same-sex marriage and pharmacists dispensing birth control pills may appear at first glance to have little in common. But the unifying standard undergirding both is the notion that no one should be compelled to engage in a commercial transaction that violates their religious convictions.

And if you can invalidate one law on that basis, why not another?

Freedom Foundation completes briefing in executive privilege case

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:36:43 PST

Last year the Freedom Foundation sued Gov. Chris Gregoire for invoking “executive privilege” in order to withhold records from the public. Executive privilege has not been recognized by the legislature or the courts in Washington. We lost at trial, with the judge ruling that Gov. Gregoire should enjoy executive privilege, just as the President does. Given the significance of the case we appealed directly to the Washington State Supreme Court. Imagine the damage that could be inflicted if a governor wanted to keep secrets from the public and had a legal mechanism for doing so.

Today we filed our closing brief for the Supreme Court. As we wrote in the brief:

The fundamental question in this case is whether the Governor of Washington enjoys a qualified executive privilege that can serve as an exemption to the mandate of disclosure in the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW. Accountability to the people is a cornerstone of the foundation of our democratic government in this State and this principle should not be undermined by an implied, non-enumerated privilege asserted by Governor Gregoire. Courts have repeatedly held that executive officers in Washington enjoy only the powers that are delegated by the Washington Constitution or by statute. Similarly, the Public Records Act explicitly states that its mandate for disclosure of records may only be overcome by specific exemptions found in law. Governor Gregoire relies on a small minority of states that have extended a qualified privilege to their chief executives. In doing so she ignores decades of Washington case law interpreting the Public Records Act. This Court should decline to recognize an implied, deferential privilege that would allow the Governor to keep secrets from the public.

The Supreme Court will decide in a month or two whether to review the case or send it down to the Court of Appeals. If the court accepts the case it will be scheduled for oral argument later this year.

UPDATED: Is it Ground Hog Day? House Democrats borrow from future again to fix budget

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:19:48 PST

Yesterday the House Democrats released a budget proposal (PSHB 2127) to close the $1.1 billion gap between projected income and spending. I asked Bob Williams, budget analyst extraordinaire, to give me his thoughts on it.

Here’s what his initial analysis turned up:

- This budget shifts another $405 million (K-12) funding to the next biennium, in essence borrowing from the next budget to fix this one. That puts us in a bigger bind, since some have already forecast up to a $2 billion state budget deficit in the next biennium (The Governor’s own budget office predicts a deficit of $1.9 billion by 2016).

Borrowing from future budgets is something we’ve been doing all too frequently, and it indicates a lack of commitment on the part of the Democratic leadership to make the hard choice to either 1) try to raise taxes or 2) make real spending cuts that would balance the budget without playing games. Both cost political capital, and clearly the Democrats couldn’t get enough agreement from their members to go for either option.

- It raids (sweeps) another $53.7 billion from other dedicated fund accounts

- It reduces $81.6 million in funding to local governments but gives them the ability to raise taxes easier than the current system. This will undoubtedly lead to higher taxes at the local level.

- The reserve is low, meaning the state may still run out of money before June 30 of next year. The proposal allows for a reserve of $504 million—only 1.6%. Minimum should be a 5% reserve. The Economic Forecast Council says there is a 40% chance revenue will be lower than the current forecast.

Bob also noted a couple of straightforward solutions the Democrats left out that would have either padded the reserve or lessened the need to borrow from the next budget:

- Consolidation of health care plans at the local level into the state plan. The State Auditor estimated this could save upwards of $100 million. We outlined the pros and cons of that plan earlier this week.

- Cancellation of STEP increases for state employees. These are the automatic increases that government workers get merely for longevity, no matter their performance. Sounds good, but it’s a luxury during a time when many private workers are lucky to have a job, let alone a pay raise.

UPDATE: The TNT and Seattle Times both editorialized against the Democrats budget this morning, calling it “irresponsible” and lamenting that we’re all still waiting for a “reality-based budget.”

Ready for a gas tax increase? There’s another way…

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:29:17 PST

This morning The Olympia Report ran a story on the newly-unveiled $9.8 billion Senate Transportation Budget, which includes an $800,000 increase over the last budget. It differs from the House version in that it doesn’t include a gas tax increase, but according to the Committee Chair, that’s not because she didn’t want one.

“The truth of the matter is, we didn’t have the votes,” she said. “We need to get the economy a little stronger before we ask for new revenue.” Haugen added, “Within the next two years we absolutely need to go out and ask for a new gas tax. We don’t want to do that, but we’re really lacking a partner in the federal government, so we’re going to have to be more bold.”

Here’s another bold idea. Why don’t we repeal (or at least scale back) Washington’s prevailing wage law before we ask voters for more taxes? Our recent study showed that approximately five cents of tax from every gallon of gas goes to pay for artificially inflated wages. Repealing the law would be like a new nickel package at no cost to taxpayers, workers would still get paid a market wage, and we’d get more transportation projects done at lower cost.

One other side note on the transportation package: the Senate version appropriates $85.2 million for Washington’s share of the “pre-engineering” for the new Columbia River Crossing bridge. But maybe the committee should investigate allegations of shady accounting surrounding the bridge first, like why DOT can’t account for $14 million of what they’ve already spent on the project.

What’s the fuss over school health benefits?

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:12:10 PST

Perhaps you have heard radio advertisements from the state teachers’ union officials about Senate Bill 6442, the bill to implement State Auditor recommendations with regard to school district employee benefits. Or perhaps you have read the Seattle Times editorial, “End the sweetheart deals, overhaul public school health benefits” or maybe the Bellevue Education Association building representative’s response column.

Background of the issue:
WEA operates a monopoly on employee representation services, and local affiliates negotiate with school boards. Among the elements those union negotiators secure for the employees are health benefits.

The state provides $768 per month for each employees health benefits ($9,216 per year), but some local school boards add levy funds to this total. The State Auditor’s report noted that $144 million of levy funds was used to enhance the amount the state provided for health benefits in 2009-10.

This process of establishing a health plan by negotiation happens in districts with represented workers every couple of years with modifications possible more frequently. Most districts have multiple bargaining units for other kinds of employees, and these each have a negotiated health benefit package. The complexity multiplies quickly.

Negotiation is only the first part of the issue for school administrators. Once established, school personnel offices must administer a complex benefit system which differs from year to year and from employee group to employee group.

The State Auditor’s report noted disparity in benefit levels and the costs to districts and employees. As a result, the cost-benefit analysis results of various benefit packages differs across the state.

However, the state already administers a health benefit system for public employees wherein providers seek to be included among the offerings based upon a competitive process.

According to information I have seen and the Times editorial, WEA also has a business relationship with one of the health benefit providers.

What is good about HB 6442:

Potential cost savings/benefit level improvements
Ending local levy funds from being diverted to enhanced adult benefits and returning those funds to student services
Freeing local school boards and administrators from wrangling and administering health benefit programs and letting them focus on the work of education
Reducing disparities between K-12 employee benefits around the state
Increases the likelihood that more employee dependents are covered

What is bad about HB 6442:

Centralizes health care purchasing at the state level and possibly limits markets
Limits local control, but over an area unrelated to the mission of local education services
Removes flexibility related to employee benefits

Washington Education Association opposes the measure because it affects their business arrangements and because it might reduce their ability to capture levy funds for employee benefits at the bargaining table.

Washington State School Directors Association and the Washington Association of School Administrators support the measure because it frees them from bargaining pressure, funding obligations and administrative burdens that detract from student services.

Some have concern over the $7.5 million per year in state operating costs, but those funds could be well worth it if they remove a multimillion dollar cost from local schools. Most importantly, the students could see a great windfall if those state costs make it possible for a portion of the $144 million per year in levy funds to be returned to student services.

Liquor Control Board considering rules to restrict liquor sales

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:14:47 PST

You can take the State out of liquor sales, but apparently you can’t take anti-market sentiments out of the Liquor Control Board.

Last year voters approved Initiative 1183, ending the state’s monopoly over liquor sales and distribution. Fans of free markets rejoiced. Now the Liquor Control Board, which retains regulatory oversight, is writing rules that restrict how restaurants purchase liquor that they will serve to their customers. There is no rational justification for creating this artificial scarcity and it would only result in driving up the prices.

Julia Clark at the Washington Restaurant Association is leading the charge against these new rules. Here’s what WRA says of the proposal:

Initiative 1183 privatizes the sale and distribution of liquor. Under the new system, a competitive market is established to set the price of liquor, and restaurant licensees will have the option of purchasing direct from a distiller, a distributor or from a retailer. While we believe most restaurants will purchase their spirits from a distributor, having competition from direct sales and retail-to-on-premise retail sales is essential for competitive pricing in the market.

The initiative allows for retail-to-on-premise retail sales of 24 liters, however the Washington Restaurant Association was adamant during the drafting of the initiative that NO LIMIT be placed on the number or frequency of these transactions. Initiative 1183 contains no limits on the number or frequency of sales.

In response to I-1183 opponents, the LCB is now proposing rules to limit sales– rules that would hinder competition and favor distributors over retailers and restaurants.

Check out Julia’s blog post here for more information.

First they came for the wood stoves

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:58:26 PST

Nobody wants to breathe polluted air, but how far should government power go (how far does it need to go) to maintain reasonable air quality?

Even as the population of the United States has continued to grow over the last 50 years, the environment has gotten cleaner. Some say this is cause to celebrate. Others say this is only the beginning. Most often, government regulators and self-appointed environmental advocates are in the second group, since it justifies their continued existence and the expansion of their power.

The Washington State Legislature is close to expanding that power when it comes to wood stoves—in an alarming way—in SB 6102 and HB 2326 (which has passed the House).

The State already has the power to impose “burn bans” when particulant levels (that is, the pollution that is caused by, among other things, burning wood) reach specified levels. This is usually associated with certain weather patterns that hold the pollution close to the ground and allow it to build up over days or even weeks. These bills would reduce the levels and thus lead to more frequent burn bans. It’s hard to imagine this is necessary, but the bills go farther.

The State also has the power to prohibit the use of wood stoves altogether in areas that fail to meet federal clean air guidelines. Again, this power already exists in law. What these bills would do, however, is to define what “prohibit” means to include forcing homeowners to remove or destroy their wood stoves. You might follow the law to a tee, you might even never use your wood stove—but the state could require you to rip it out. Here is the full provision.

“Prohibit the use” or “prohibition” may include requiring disclosure, removal, rendering inoperable, providing evidence of destruction, or other similar requirements as may be approved by rule by a local air pollution control authority or the department.”

So “prohibiting the use” of a wood stove in order to keep the air clean suddenly means the power to create a wood stove registry (“disclosure”), or to take or destroy them? Simply by redefining one word, this legislation dramatically expands government power in a way that could trample property rights and create a dangerous precedent in other areas of law.

One last point, and a very practical one. Washington state just experienced a winter storm that left many without power for days while the weather was bitter cold and many streets impassible. Does the legislature really want to eliminate what for many people is their only source of backup heat in such an emergency?

Preview: “We the People” new first principles of freedom program

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:00:10 PST

For years, the Freedom Foundation has provided high-quality resources for citizens to gain knowledge and insights about the basic ideas that underlie a free society and free markets. That work inspired our friends at the State Policy Network to launch “We the People,” a new national program to help advance this educational mission nationwide. Enjoy this exciting “preview” video introducing the first set of online essays.

OG Pod: State Pays Millions for Public Records Violations

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:45:15 PST

Mike Reitz and Greg Overstreet discuss KING 5’s recent report that the state has paid $4.8 million over five years for public records violations.

Hot Bills 2012 Legislative Session

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:14:22 PST

Last updated: February 16, 2012

Important dates: 2/12 cutoff house of origin; 2/24 policy cutoff opposite house; 2/27 fiscal cutoff opposite house; 3/2 cutoff opposite house; 3/8 sine die

Here are bills that matter this session and are worth watching. See the Freedom Foundation’s analysis below and follow the links for more information.

Budget and Taxes: HB 2127
Proposed Supplemental Budget for 2011-2013
Cuts spending, shifts funds and increases revenue through a new tax and revocation of a tax preference. Read our overview of the House Democrats’ budget proposal for more info.
Fails to address systemic problems that led to government over-spending, continues habit of playing budget games to balance the books
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Transportation: SB 6445
Concerning the Interstate 5 Columbia river crossing project.
Designates the Columbia River Crossing project as a toll facility and allows total project expenses up to $3.4 billion.
Increases fees and taxes
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Elections: HB 2205
Allowing 16 and 17 year olds to register to vote
Would allow 16 and 17 year olds to file a voter registration form, which would be held pending until they were 18, at which time they would be made active voters.
Mixed result. Would standardize current practice, thus improving accuracy. But would continue down path of convenience over security by adding more ineligible voters to database and relying on Secretary of State to prevent them from getting ballots while ineligible, something that’s happened in the past.
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Budget: HB 2607
Requiring Six-Year Budget Forecast
Requires Office of Financial Management to include a six-year financial outlook for state expenditures and revenue with governor budget proposals
Increases accountability and potentially decreases unwise spending
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Budget: ESJR 8222
Balanced Budget Amendment
Would prevent legislature or governor from approving a budget that spent more than projected revenues, using a four-year outlook.
Potentially decreases over-spending (depending on strength of enforcement), improves accountability
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Licensing: HB 2372
Concerning fees and rates for tow truck services and vehicle storage.
Establishes maximum rates for private impounds conducted by certain registered tow truck operators.
Decreases individual liberty, decreases personal responsibility, increases regulation
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Property Rights: HB 1508
Protecting sport shooting ranges.
Provides a sport shooting range with an affirmative defense to a nuisance action based on noise or noise pollution.
Increases individual freedom, increases personal responsibility
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Labor: SB 6442
Implements cost-savings
Consolidates school district employee health benefit purchasing as recommended by the State Auditor to secure efficiencies, cost-savings and transparency.
Efficient use of taxes.
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Education: SB 5895
Teacher and principal evaluation
A milder version of SB 6203 which enhances the teacher and principal evaluation system to require student learning growth as a factor. The legislation also softens the practice of seniority-based teacher retention and job protection for teachers who get the poorest performance review repeatedly. A decent summary of what is in this bill compared to stronger versions is here.
Softens regulations which interfere with free markets
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Education: HB 2170
“Career Pathways Act”
A variety of actions by the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board and others to encourage and facilitate consideration of students’ employment futures. Funded in the House budget as a new item, this bill has a fiscal note of $355,800.
Reduces personal responsibility, increases regulation and ignores free markets.
[Freedom Pillars] [Take Action] [Join the Conversation]

Bills that died during session

Washington Supreme Court invalidates Mason County conservation assessment

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:17:24 PST

Today the Washington State Supreme Court delivered a win to four Mason County residents who disputed a special assessment that Mason County had levied on nonforest lands.

In 2003, Mason County imposed an annual assessment of $5.00 on certain parcels to “create a fund dedicated to addressing water resource protection issues within Mason County.” By 2007 the county had collected more than $1.1 million from the assessment. A group of property owners (James R. Cary, Mary Alice Cary, John E. Diehl and William D. Fox Sr.) challenged the validity of the assessment. The trial court ruled that the county had levied an unconstitutional tax, but the Court of Appeals upheld the assessment in 2009. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case in 2010.

The Freedom Foundation (formerly the Evergreen Freedom Foundation) filed two amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs in support of the property owners who challenged the assessment, and also participated in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The Foundation was represented by Richard Stephens and Brian Amsbary of Groen, Stephens & Klinge LLP. The Foundation argued that the Court of Appeals ignored the distinctions between special assessments, taxes, and fees, and that the decision weakens constitutional restrictions placed on governments that wish to adopt new assessments and taxes.

Today the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in favor of the property owners. Justice Gerry Alexander wrote the opinion. The decision turned on Mason County’s failure to comply with statutory requirements when imposing special assessments for natural resource conservation. The residents who challenged the assessment will be entitled to refunds.

“This unanimous decision represents a significant victory for property owners against creative government financing schemes that fail to comply with statutory requirements,” Richard Stephens said. “The Freedom Foundation provided briefing and argument that encouraged the Court to reach the favorable ruling in this case.”

“Congratulations to the group of determined residents who fought back against this assessment,” said Michael Reitz, general counsel of the Freedom Foundation. “Their determination in waging a nine year battle against Mason County is impressive.”

The case is Cary, et al. v. Mason County, No. 83937-9.

Crazy Talk

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:26:13 PST

“In the same way that unchecked power for capitalists will destroy an economy, so too will the unchecked power of unions. This is because the work rules and constrainst that unions place on the institutions they inhabit decrease the ability of those institutions to adapt to changing needs. Each new well-meaning worker protection makes it less likely that the institution will survive. Today, the WEA is literally strangling our public schools to death with an almost infinite number of institutionalized rules that limit change, innovation and excellence. …One of the greatest travesties here is the way in which Democrats have ceded the issue and high moral ground to Republicans.”

Which right-wing extremist wrote these words?

According to Publicola and Washington State Newswire, this was written by Nick Hanauer, “a multi-million-dollar backer of Democratic political interests and founder of the League of Education Voters.”

It has been interesting to watch the left-of-center philanthropic folks realize that in some ways the interests of adults trump the interests of students, and money alone will not change this.

Even the Gates Foundation started out by simply giving money to the Seattle School District. But since these folks are results-oriented altruists who care about how to improve student learning, they can see through the rhetoric and the interests of adults.

Students can only benefit when well-respected public figures are willing to stand up for their interests.

A law that helps college tuition stay high in Washington state

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:15:14 PST

At the University of Washington in Seattle, libraries on campus now have reduced hours.
Class options are shrinking. Student resources are scarce.

Steve Heidenreich, the Student Freedom Project Liaison at UW, tells me that these are the ways institutional and state budget cuts personally strain students’ educational experience. For many people out there, especially students, the only solution seems to be more funding from the state.

But guess what? There is a cut that could benefit higher education … if only the state would make it.

That “cut” is to repeal the state’s prevailing wage law. This law establishes the minimum wages workers receive when the state hires them for public construction and maintenance projects.

You might think that minimum wage doesn’t sound so bad. A lot of people make minimum wage and struggle to make ends meet. But these aren’t your ordinary minimum wages. In fact, they are far above the wages of other workers not so lucky to be on the state’s gravy train. Take a construction equipment driver in Olympia, for example. According to a new Freedom Foundation study, the state requires contractors to pay workers $49.46 per hour – nearly $28 more than the ordinary hourly wage calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And, like all state projects, taxpayers are footing the bill.

That might not be so bad if we were actually getting what we pay for. But the reality is that we’re spending more and getting less since the state can afford fewer public projects at these artificially inflated prices. And because the state is doing fewer projects, it’s actually hiring fewer workers. That’s right—while some workers benefit, they do it at the high price of leaving others with no jobs at all.

So what does that have to do with higher education? Well, if the state government were to repeal prevailing wage and pay public workers market wages, it would free up taxpayer money. That money could then be put toward other worthwhile projects – like funding for higher education.

2012 Legislative Session Town Halls

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:24:10 PST

We are about halfway through the 2012 Legislative Session and our elected representatives are just now beginning to discuss our state budget. The same state budget they panicked about back in November 2011 when the Governor called yet another Special Session to deal with a near $2 Billion deficit. However, despite not fixing the deficit, the legislature decided to deal with other “more pressing” issues when they convened in January, content to let our budget problems sit on the sidelines.

At the midpoint, many of our legislators are hosting town hall meetings, over the phone and in person, to get feedback from their constituents. You must be at these meetings to hold them accountable, tell your story, and ensure they make good decisions about how our state government spends our money.

The League of Education Voters has compiled a list of all the upcoming town hall meetings (most are this weekend). Check your Legislative District and see who your Legislators are and where they are meeting and make it a point to be there. In politics, victory goes to the people who show up.

As you prepare to go, be sure to check out these two important resources:

For more information about the 2012 Legislative Session, visit our dedicated webpage.

UPDATED: Voting Rights Act (aka the Attorney Enrichment Act) moving through Legislature

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:37:50 PST

Update: The Washington Voting Rights act appears to be dead, having missed Tuesday’s cut-off date to be voted out of the house of origin.

As Dino Rossi and Al Gore can attest, the last place you want an election decided is in the courts. It’s nearly impossible for a court to turn back the clock on an election, meaning justice is difficult to attain and the public is left with reduced confidence in the process.

A bill currently moving through the Legislature, the “Washington Voting Rights Act,” would greatly expand the likelihood of elections unnecessarily ending up in the courts. Both a House and Senate version (HB 2612 & SB 6381) passed out of their respective policy committees last week, so the bill could be brought to the floor of either chamber at any time.

The Act would allow a member of a protected class (minority race, color or language) challenge an election result on the basis of “racially-biased” voting patterns. The primary target of the law is at-large elections, where every voter from an entire district votes on each race, such as a city or county council race. The law would be weighted in favor of creating district-based elections, wherein a school district, for instance, is carved up into multiple voting jurisdictions in order to diversify representation.

For example, if 40 percent of the voters in a school district were part of minority groups, and a minority candidate for school board lost an election by a wider-than-expected margin, one person from a minority group could sue to have the election overturned.

That person would not have to show discriminatory intent on the part of voters or officials, and according to Jeff Even of the Attorney General’s office, the school district would bear all costs, including expert witnesses and court fees, and could not recover any costs even if they won. He called this fee-shifting “the most one sided and onerous I have ever seen.”

Sounds like a dream scenario for lawyers, doesn’t it?

Based on California’s example, it certainly is. The San Francisco Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, which wrote the bill, started filing lawsuits soon after the ink was dry on the governor’s signature. By 2009 they had raked in more than $4 million dollars from litigation against school districts.

And the Act insults minorities by assuming they vote solely on whether a candidate is similar in race, color or language. Consider Modesto, California, where in 2010 a majority Latino district elected a white Republican—who was a long-time resident of the community—instead of a Latino Democrat.

Proponents say this law simply strengthens enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act. That Act, however, was intended to remove race as an issue from elections. This law turns that notion on its head by requiring that race be an issue. America is a melting pot, not a nation of fragmented and suspicious groups.

KIPP Empower Academy: Truly Empowering kindergartners through blended learning

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:50:30 PST

KIPP Empower Academy, one of five public charter schools in KIPP LA’s South and East Los Angeles network, was scheduled to open in the fall of 2010. Based on high standards and low student-teacher ratios, leaders and faculty were excited about what was in store for their 116 kindergarten students. According to their case study, 98% of students are African American or Latino, 92% qualified for free or reduced lunch, and 8% were classified as special needs.

Then funds were cut. To operate within their new budget, class sizes had to be increased to 28-1. That’s a lot of 5-year-olds per adult. It was then that school founder and principal Mike Kerr made the decision that KIPP Empower would be a blended school.

By putting computer stations in each classroom and rotating students from small group instruction to the computers for each core subject, Kerr ensured that student-teacher ratios would be 14-1 or better.

Many of the blended schools we hear about are middle and high schools. Can it work for the earliest grades? The results speak for themselves. After one year at KIPP Empower, 96% of students scored at or above average on the nationally norm MAP test in Reading and Math, with 58% in the top quartile in Math and 68% in the top quartile in Reading.

KIPP Empower is committed to preparing their “scholars” from the earliest grades “to lead lives of significance, to be critical thinkers, to be leaders, and to be on a trajectory that maximizes their potential,” says Kerr.

By looking to schools like KIPP Empower, we catch a glimpse of what is possible for our own kids if we have the courage to innovate. Watch the video above to see for yourself the power of blended learning in this elementary school.

Media Release: “Online education equity? Families take state to court over cuts”

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:59:28 PST

On Monday, February 13th, the Washington Families for Online Learning Coalition announced their lawsuit against the state of Washington to restore full basic education funding for online students.

In the 2011 legislative session, legislators reduced the Basic Education Allocation (BEA) by 15 percent for students participating in an online public school program in lieu of a traditional public school. In a press release, the Coalition wrote,

Since the establishment of online public school programs in 2005 via HB 5828, there has been no question that online learning is a delivery model for basic education under state law. Accordingly, students enrolled in state-approved online public schools have received the full Basic Education Allocation (BEA) per FTE student as students enrolled in traditional public schools—until … 2011. Now students enrolled in online public schools receive just 85% of BEA while students in traditional public schools continue to receive 100% funding.

Traditional public schools receive funding from a number of sources including local levies, which increases their operating funds to a state average of more than $9,500 per pupil. Typically online schools rely solely on the state’s BEA which, until 2011, amounted to roughly $5,000 per pupil.

“In cutting 15 percent of the BEA for online students, the legislature discriminated against one set of public school students, and risks making it difficult for these programs to operate at all,” said Diana Moore, Senior Education Analyst for the Freedom Foundation. “If these cuts persist, one of the state’s first online schools will be forced to close. Because of the cut last year, others have had to reduce support services that are essential for student success. Cutting funding for these programs may leave them unable to meet student needs, forcing some students back into traditional public schools that weren’t meeting their needs in the first place.”

The lawsuit was filed by a number of online learning families in King County Superior Court. The Supreme Court of Washington recently affirmed a King County ruling that the state was not fulfilling its constitutional duty to amply fund public education (McCleary vs. State).

Freedom Foundation General Counsel Mike Reitz offered the following statement:
“The Washington Constitution admonishes the state to provide amply for education. The Supreme Court recently scolded the Legislature for underfunding education. If that is true, the Legislature’s decision to cut funding for online public students is puzzling. If the Legislature is supposed to amply provide for a uniform system of education it shouldn’t defund various segments of students. Every student deserves an equal opportunity to succeed. The Legislature shouldn’t play favorites.”

# # #

Nothing in this document should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation or ballot measure.

9th Circuit decision could short-circuit referendum to overturn gay marriage in Washington

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:59:14 PST

Responding to Republican efforts to attach a referendum amendment to Washington’s same-sex marriage bill, which was approved on Wednesday by the State House of Representatives, Rep. Deb Eddy (D-Kirkland) dismissively insisted there was no need for such a provision.

“There’s no emergency clause in this bill,” she said. “There’s nothing stopping the voters from passing a referendum to overturn it if they so choose.”

Um, not so fast.

Although it was given scant attention during Wednesday’s debate, the gay marriage decision rendered a day earlier by a three-judge panel of California’s uber-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could render Eddy’s statement either misleading or an outright lie.

In the California case, the judges overturned Proposition 8, under which a majority of that state’s voters had defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The ballot measure was passed in response to an earlier decision by the California State Supreme Court legalizing same-sex unions.

The 9th Circuit decision, however, did not specifically address the larger question of whether bans on same-sex unions are, by definition, unconstitutional. Presumably the judges kept their focus narrow in order to mislead the U.S. Supreme Court into believing it was simply a California matter and not worth overturning on the federal level.

The case does have broader implications, however, as Washington’s experience could soon show.

The 9th Circuit judges based their decision on the belief that the state Supreme Court had already opened the floodgates to gay marriage in that state and that taking a right away after it had already been conferred represented a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

As a practical matter, the ruling implies that, once a court or Legislature grants a previously unknown right to a favored class of citizens and they begin exercising it, that right can never be revoked by any other branch of government.

That’s an absurd notion, and one the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly feel compelled to address at some point.

In the meantime, Washington state voters are already primed to place a voter referendum of their own on the November general election ballot to overturn the same-sex marriage bill, which is scheduled to become law 90 days after it’s signed by the governor.

Assuming gay marriage opponents get enough signatures on their referendum petitions before then, same-sex marriages wouldn’t start happening until the voters have their say in November.

Depending on what the U.S. Supreme Court does, though, that could be the last chance anyone ever has to overturn the law.

If the referendum fails and the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take up the 9th Circuit’s ruling, gay marriages will start happening. At that point, applying the California standard, no voter initiative or legislative action would ever be able to stop them after the fact.

Which is no doubt why same-sex marriage supporters in this state were so resistant to the notion of a referendum clause and why opponents will be watching carefully to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal of the 9th Circuit decision—hopefully sooner rather than later.

Friends of the San Juans offer justification for harassing local islander

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:34:30 PST

Pictured above: Stephanie Buffum, Executive Director of the “Friends” of the San Juans. She has filed multiple complaints against Charles Dalton, an Orcas Island resident.

Orcas Island, WA—Donors of the “Friends” of the San Juans are contributing—at least partially—to a powerful special interest group that pits neighbors against neighbors in the San Juan Islands. It sounds frighteningly like the secret police—where people were coerced into turning on their neighbors for some radical ideological purpose—but that’s exactly what is happening on Orcas Island.

Charles Dalton, a small organic farmer on Orcas Island has recently felt the effects that the powerful “friends” have. Stephanie Buffum has filed multiple complaints against Charles Dalton for what the “friends” say is construction and building “near a wetland or a stream”. But the “friends” don’t bother to do any real investigation or find out the truth of the matter, instead, they spy on neighbors, take photos, and file complaints. Charles Dalton has hired a professional Hydrogeologist and Engineering Geologist that says there are no streams or wetlands on his property—it is merely agricultural drainage ditches.

The “friends”, however, don’t let the real facts get in thier way. They use their “expertise” to help people file complaints against their neighbors, even if the complaints are untruthful. Charles Dalton said, “The head of the Friends of the San Juans name is Stephanie Buffum and she’s come to my property and she’s taken photos over and over and reported over 50 times to the county ... some of them are outright untruths.”

The “friends” response letter states that, “Since 1979, Friends has been providing science, education, law and citizen action to preserve the land, water, sea and livability of the San Juans.” and “A majority of Friends staff time is devoted to science, research, restoration programs, education, land use policy and planning.”

Now the “friends” can add “neighborhood spy” and “professional harassers” to the list of their qualifications.

Charles Dalton would like everyone to know that, “The friends have been very unfriendly to me.”

See related stories

Playing the Political Game - Get Free Podcast

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:51:35 PST

Many Americans care about the issues our country faces, but are tired of political games. How can our country get past politics as usual? Join the discuss in the comments!

Session Watch - Licensing Amateur Martial Arts

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:02:41 PST

Who would know our state has a budget problem? Some legislators just want to keep expanding the power of the state—even to regulating amateur martial arts. And HB 2301 is on its way to the House floor. This kind of licensing is emblematic of the abusive growth of the state. It’s usually pushed by established businesses who want to protect their turf—and government power is so much cleaner than going to the mob.

Free people are not required to get licenses—government permission—to engage in consensual activities on private property. Just when we thought the state has licenses for just about everything.

Olympia City Council dances on the taxpayer’s nickel

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:01:28 PST

This weekend, at their annual retreat, the City of Olympia Council took Bon Odori lessons. Bon Odori (Bon dancing) is a traditional Janpaneese dance with its origins from Buddhism in China.

The council took time to dance even though serious issues are looming in Olympia. The Olympian recently reported [here] that the city will begin 2012 about $1.7 million in the hole. Do taxpayers really think the Council would take retreat time to work on the budget? No way! Not in Olympia. It’s time to dance the Bon! Retreats are like recess time right? Let’s play!

The video shows Councilmembers practicing the “Coalminer’s Dance”. It’s only appropriate though. Shovel to the right, shovel to the left, use the miner’s lamp to search, then push! That’s just what the Council will have to do this year—dig themselves out of debt, search for new ways to tax people, then push their agenda onto the public.

Now it all kinda makes sense.

Pictured in the video are councilmembers Stephen H. Buxbaum—Mayor, Steve Langer, Nathaniel Jones, Julie Hankins, Jeannine Roe, Jim Cooper. Karen Rogers was absent.

Local-only Union

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:54:47 PST

I remain surprised that districts are all so similar to one another, but today I was provided a news item which shows variety is possible:

“Waterville Teachers Plan to Ax Union Affiliation”
Wenatchee World, February 4.

The dramatic title is a bit of a misnomer, for the teachers are reportedly intending to have a union. They just aren’t going to be bothering to send the bulk of their money to Washington DC or Federal way to pay for advocacy unrelated to their local working conditions (such as WEA lobbyists telling lawmakers that their members want the same-sex marriage bill to pass).

And why not? I believe it is important for employees to have options for their workplace representation, and a monopoly on the service has the inevitable result of being unresponsive, inefficient and expensive. Theoretically, for the amount of dues many teachers pay, they could each hire an attorney to wrangle a contract.

Local only unions are not radical—I am told some already exist in this state. Many law enforcement unions operate on this model as well.

I recall one school district whose board of directors negotiated a contract which obligated the district to only withhold dues or fees roughly equal to the local dues from those who didn’t join the union. And of course, some boards of directors permit the employee to decide if the representation dues or fees will be paid or not.

San Juan County regulations “unfriendly” towards local farmer

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:26:08 PST

Charles Dalton just wants to grow blueberries on his small organic, no-till farm. He built a barn without a permit, and the “Friends” of San Juan County turned him in. Now, San Juan County is treating Charles like a criminal. Instead of helping him through the process, San Juan County is throwing the book at him and piling on the requirements.

There seems to be no end in sight. Watch this video and decide for yourself if San Juan County is working for the citizens of San Juan County, or if they are unduly influenced by the Department of Ecology and powerful special interest groups like the “friends”.

OG Pod: A Legislative Update

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:52:54 PST

Mike Reitz and Greg Overstreet discuss several bills introduced in the 2012 legislative session.

Taxes for Educational Expenses

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:25:47 PST

I have carefully reviewed the McCleary Supreme Court decision for guidance about what is next,

House Bill 2763 is so far off the mark it almost seems intentional.

The bill connects a proposed tax increase to education spending, and asks that the whole package go before the voters.

Three flaws:

First, the proponents continue to suggest that money to pay for diesel to transport students is not there unless voters approve a tax increase.

Second, the bill invests in those education expenses which are less-than-optimal for student learning. Funding wage increases might be desirable to the adults of the system, but have little if any connection to student learning or the services that families receive from their local schools.

Third, the Court clearly expresses objection to funding the status quo system:

fundamental reforms are needed for Washington to meet its constitutional obligation to its students. Pouring more money into an outmoded system will not succeed.

So rather than take leadership and develop a funding system which (as required by the ruling) connects all aspects of our allocation system to identifiable gains in student learning, lawmakers are dumping funds into the marginal benefit areas of the “outmoded system” And then they aren’t even making the decision, but rather setting the choice before the citizens.

Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Law: Spend More, Get Less

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:25:09 PST

Download a copy of The Prevailing Wage here.

“Prevailing Wage” law means more potholes, more dangerous bridges, and less economic growth

“Do more with less.” It’s a good idea anytime and a necessity in hard economic times. Unless you’re the government. Both the federal and Washington state governments—by law—do less with more when it comes to building and repairing infrastructure.

The “do less with more” law is actually called “prevailing wage” or Davis-Bacon, after the two sponsors of the federal bill in 1931. Originally, Davis-Bacon was designed to keep minority workers from “taking” white jobs by underbidding established contractors for public works projects. Washington state enacted prevailing wage in 1945; the law applies to state-funded public works projects. Thirty-two states have some form of prevailing wage law.

Davis-Bacon and state prevailing wage laws establish artificial floors for wages paid by government contractors. Essentially the laws create a multitude of minimum wages for different kinds of construction work in different regions. The wages are supposed to reflect the ordinary (i.e. “prevailing”) wage in the locale. At both the federal and state level, the prevailing wage is determined using unscientific surveys of businesses and unions. In the end, government bureaucrats establish wage floors that reduce competition for government projects and grossly inflate the costs to taxpayers.

A new Freedom Foundation study shows that in the Olympia area, Washington’s prevailing wage law requires contractors to pay construction equipment operators at least $49.46 per hour. Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which calculates actual market wages, finds that the market price for the same work in the same area is $22.01 per hour.

In Spokane, a roofer working on a state-taxpayer-funded project must be paid at least $32.88 per hour. Do the same work there in the private sector and the average wage is $16.77 per hour.

In Kitsap County, a construction laborer in the private sector makes about $16.72 per hour. Work for state taxpayers, however, and the same laborer will get $32.44 per hour. In each of these cases, taxpayers are forced to pay nearly twice the actual labor costs. To put it another way, taxpayers are getting a lot less than what we’re paying for.

One way to understand prevailing wage laws is to think about monopolies and other kinds of price fixing. Generally, those things are illegal. When one company controls the marketplace, or when companies get together and create a cartel, consumers lose the power to choose. They pay more and get less.

Monopolies and price fixing are illegal—except where government creates an exception. In the case of prevailing wage laws, government not only creates an exception, but mandates price-fixing. Prevailing wage laws do exactly the same thing as any cartel—they stop competition in order to raise prices on consumers, in this case, on taxpayers.

A few workers benefit. Their unions benefit. The politicians supported by these workers and unions benefit. But almost everybody loses. Taxpayers are bilked, and every user of government infrastructure, from school kids to truck drivers, loses out too. Prevailing wage laws are a classic example of special interest legislation, where the benefits go to a tiny but vocal group and the costs are spread out so much that most losers don’t even realize they’re being abused.

Since 1945, Washington legislators have decided to fill in fewer potholes, retrofit fewer bridges, and build fewer new schools in order to benefit a small special interest with our state prevailing wage law. Repealing this law is one of the easiest ways legislators could show respect for state taxpayers, seriousness about the budget, and an interest in reviving Washington’s economy.

Download a copy of the full study here.

Digital Learning Day Success!

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:53:35 PST

Yesterday was the first ever national Digital Learning Day. More than 10,000 teachers and 2 million students participated in raising awareness of the importance of digital learning. Among them was a dedicated band of online students from across Washington state.

The Freedom Foundation’s iLearn Project and the Washington Families for Online Learning Coalition partnered to host a demonstration of online students and teachers conducting their regular school day from two conference rooms at the state capitol. Legislators and staffers dropped in and learned from the true experts as students, teachers, and parents engaged with visitors to illustrate the academic rigor, accountability, and overall importance of online learning options.

Digital Learning Day was spear-headed by Governor Bob Wise and the Alliance for Excellent Education. In a Jan. 26 press release, Wise said,

“The urgency of providing a quality education means every child has access to the engaging experience that comes with powerful teaching and rigorous content available through digital learning. The teachers are here, the technology is everywhere, and the students are ready and able. Now it’s time to put it all together.”

Visit www.digitallearningday.org for countless resources and to learn how more than 35 other states recognized Digital Learning Day.

On February 21 Washington’s digital learning community will once again come together for the sixth annual Online Learning Day at the Capitol where last year more than 400 families attended. This year, due to the 15 percent budget cut to Basic Education Funding passed in the last legislative session, even more families are expected to attend and advocate for equal basic education funding for all public school students.

Priorities of Government: “Fund Education First”

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:56:51 PST

The Freedom Foundation has a long history of calling for prioritizing the functions and spending of government.

One proposal introduced each year for the past several years requires state lawmakers to complete the budget for K-12 education before taking up other spending priorities. This year the bill is HB 2533, and it was considered by the House Education Appropriations and Oversight Committee on January 31st.

Often the difficulty of getting lawmakers to prioritize is that no part of the legislative process requires legislators to make large-scale priority decisions. Instead, it seems that each lawmaker seeks to get as many dollars for their preferred programs’ immediate need.

A bill like “fund education first” signals an intent to establish the priority of K-12 education in the budget process.

Would it guarantee all the education funding increases that school administrators and employee groups would like to have? Probably not.

Does a determined majority need a “fund education first” provision in order to make education a priority? Probably not.

Would budget writers write the education budget without regard to the available revenue and without regard to other spending priorities? Probably not.

But it would signal that lawmakers have concluded that among the functions of government, Education is a priority item unlike any other. That conclusion should stack the deck on behalf of education spending.

The public interest in education, however, is not education spending. Doubling the wages of all the adults on the payroll increases education spending, but it is unrelated to producing an educated citizenry and preparing each student for a life of liberty and self-sufficiency.

Perhaps we need legislation to make it the state’s priority within that education budget to “Fund Student Learning First.”

UPDATED: Bill to allow Election Day registration up for hearing at 8:00 tomorrow

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:42:42 PST

House Bill 2204 was passed out of committee last week, and is now headed for a vote in the House General Government and Appropriations Committee on February 2 at 8:00 a.m. The legislation would require counties to accept voter registrations right up to 5 p.m. on Election Day. The current deadline is eight days before an election, allowing county staff time to verify both the accuracy and the legality of the registration information.

We’ve talked before about why this is a bad policy for Washington state, but here’s a brief recap:

- This is a solution in search of a problem, and it will introduce a major opportunity for chaos and inaccuracy in our election system.
- Auditors should be given sufficient time to confirm the validity of a voter registration, and it takes more than one day to do that
- Other states have experienced a very high rate of error in Election Day registrations
- Once a voter submits a ballot, it’s very difficult to take it back if their registration is later found to be invalid
- Our election officials believe this change would make it harder to have accurate elections. Right before a huge presidential and state election is not the time to do that

Representatives of the County Auditors Association and the Secretary of State all testified against the bill in the first hearing, noting that many people will simply wait until whatever the deadline is, and that election staff have many other pressing tasks on Election Day. More about their opposition is at The Olympia Report.

If you’d like to weigh in on this issue with your legislators or the committee members, now’s the time.

UPDATE: Last night the committee apparently removed this bill from Thursday’s agenda, substituting HB 2612 (Washington Voting Rights Act), another bill we have concerns about.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Par

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:22:48 PST

Registration for the Freedom Foundation’s second annual Freedom Classic Golf Tournament is now open! Join us on July 26, 2012, at the beautiful Indian Summer Golf Club in Olympia. All proceeds support the Freedom Foundation.

We had a fantastic time at last year’s kick-off event, and we have even bigger plans for 2012! Please consider putting a foursome together. Sponsorship opportunities are also available; please contact Jessica at 360.956.3482. Photos from the 2011 tournament.

Get Free Episode 76 - What Else Can The Magic Bullet Blend?

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:46:49 PST

What About Bob?, Neon Electric Violins, a 3 year iPhone master…oh, and Online Education. This episode of Get Free has it all!

Interview with Richard Sanders

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:24:12 PST

Richard Sanders served as a justice on the Washington State Supreme Court from 1996 to 2011, where he had a reputation for defending the rights of individuals, the right to enjoy private property, and open, accountable government. Sanders recently joined us on the Supreme Court of Washington Podcast to discuss his legal career. We covered a wide range of topics, including his judicial philosophy, his approach for interpreting the constitution, several memorable cases he worked on, and the process he used to write opinions.

We also discussed the final days of his 2010 campaign, which he lost to attorney Charlie Wiggins. Justice Sanders specifically addressed the controversy over his comments about racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The Seattle Times accused him of racial insensitivity and yanked its endorsement of him just days before election day. Sanders lays his loss at the feet of the Seattle Times. He offered his perspective on what happened, what was said, and his views on the role of race in the judicial system. He says that racism plays a role in arrests, prosecutions, and convictions, but he strongly disagreed with the idea that we have a racist judiciary.

Listen to the interview here.

A Year to Prune Government?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:23:25 PST

Senator Rodney Tom has introduced legislation which seeks to eliminate the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board. Senate Bill 6402 will receive a hearing January 25th at 1:30.

If ever there was a season for considering priorities of government and trimming back on ancillary services, this is it.

Among the duties of the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board:

Advocate for the training system
Make recommendations
Provide for coordination
Develop a database
Establish programs for marketing
Facilitate programs
Encourage progress in equity
Participate in planning
Facilitate private sector assistance
Administer evaluations of systems

These duties are at the edges of the work of the Higher Education Coordinating Board and the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges.

It is true that some duties, like the administration of the federal Workforce Investment Act, are important, but—as suggested in the legislation—these could be carried out by another state entity. But what is on the job description of a public employee who is charged with “facilitating the development of programs?”

Obama betrays economic confusion in State of the Union

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:00 PST

The state of our union ... is a matter of some dispute. What do you think?

Here are some of the most problematic of the President’s assertions and implications of the evening.

No one should pay more than 30%—in federal taxes? That’s nearly a third of a person’s income and it doesn’t include state and local taxes and the costs of complying with government regulations. Add all those up and some people would pay more than half—and of course, some do. President Obama believes that at least some citizens should be forced to spend most of their time working for someone else’s benefit—forced labor at the behest of politicians. (When the proportion hits 100%, everyone agrees that’s slavery….)

Congress must act to hold down the interest rates on student loans—bubbly! Remember the housing crisis? Artificially low interest rates, generally and in particular for certain high-risk borrowers, was one of the causes of the housing bubble. Make money cheap and people treat it—and what they buy with it—as cheap. And bubbles build, and eventually they burst. In higher education, government has created a situation where people feel foolish for trying to work their way through school—and indeed they may be. If inflation picks up, artificially low student loan rates are a gift to borrowers that give them a competitive advantage over those who paid as they went. And this and other subsidies allow colleges and universities to increase prices, which hurts everyone in the long run (but the long run is much longer than a campaign cycle).

All that stuff about off-shoring jobs. Businesses are in business to make money, and we’re better off because of that fact. Businesses want to make the product or offer the service that consumers value most at the very least cost. That’s good—it creates value that gets split between both the business (shareholders, officers, and workers) and consumers. Try to mess with the equation and you eat into that value—that is, government interference generally makes the pie smaller even as it might seem to redistribute the pieces to more sympathetic groups. If we want companies to do more here and less overseas, there are three simple steps: lower the corporate tax rate, reduce bad-for-business regulations, and get a grip on tort liability. The President touched on the second of these, but made clear that he would like to raise taxes on some companies to try to have his way with them.

School Choice Week (and how online learning is good for students and teachers)

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:14:43 PST

In “Short Circuited: The Challenge Facing the Online Learning Revolution in California” our friends at the Pacific Research Institute tell the story of online learning in California.

Highlighting Rocketship Education, School of One, and California Virtual Academy, the film shows the benefits of online and blended learning for students from a variety of backgrounds.

It goes on to address push-back from teacher unions and how the potential of online learning is only limited by the regulations we place on it.

The film points out that sometimes the interests of teachers and students do not coincide, and in those cases student interests should come first. This is absolutely true.

But the digital learning revolution is not one of those cases.

Embracing online learning is good for students. It opens up countless options for families, providing access to courses otherwise unavailable to every student. As Getting Smart author Tom Vander Ark has said, with online learning there is no reason why every student shouldn’t have access to every Advanced Placement course. It also allows students to learn at their own pace while getting support from qualified teachers. Online learning equalizes opportunity and has the potential to reach society’s most vulnerable. And these are just a few benefits.

But these advantages don’t occur at the expense of teachers. Indeed, online learning benefits teachers, too.

As Governor Bob Wise explained at the Washington Online Learning Symposium, digital learning takes teaching to a level of professionalism teachers have been asking for. Instead of the “sage on the stage” or “guide on the side,” with online learning teachers become “educational designers.”

For decades, teachers have faced the daunting task of educating a room of students that typically have only one thing in common: their age. The average classroom is made up of students with a variety of learning styles, learning levels, interests, temperaments, and more. Today every student is expected to graduate college and career ready, making a teacher’s job more demanding than ever.

The only way for teachers to meet that demand is to update the way we do school. Enter the educational designer. Using online tools (that are increasingly affordable), today’s teacher can build a unique program catered to the needs of each student. Instead of diminishing the importance of teachers, online learning enhances it by giving them the tools to meet individual student needs in ways that were previously impossible.

This is National School Choice Week, and digital learning is one of the most promising choices on the menu. Pacific Research Council rightly notes that teacher unions have pushed back against online learning. But there is no reason why teachers, students, and families can’t join together to advocate for more digital learning options. Those who oppose them are opposing what’s good for students and what’s good for teachers.

Government by whom?

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:34:24 PST

Washington State’s Higher Education Coordinating Board and State Board of Education are targeted for reforms this year.

These boards are primarily filled with appointees drawn from the citizenry. Their duties are related to defining the public interest, setting goals for improvements and establishing accountability measures.

The criticism arises that they are not “effective.”

But what is “effectiveness” in governing and who decides?

It may be that institutions of higher education are disappointed in accountability measures. It may be that stakeholders are disappointed that citizen boards are not zealous enough for expanded roles and funding for public institutions. It may also be that citizen boards lack the “first-hand knowledge” required to understand that change is too hard.

To some, the answer is clear: Put representatives of those who receive the funds on the boards.

House Bill 2493 and Senate Bill 6319 would restructure the State Board of Education by replacing citizen members with three representatives of school administrators and four representatives of unions.

Senate Bill 6269 would changes the Higher Education Coordinating Board by adding five representatives of higher education institutions to the new governing board.

House Bill 2483 and Senate Bill 6232 seek to reform higher education governance by replacing citizens in the governing role with representatives of government agencies.

House Bill 2368, meanwhile, would add a requirement that each board of trustees for community college districts include a representative of “labor.”

The growth of government has created pressure for the Legislature to cede some of its responsibility to citizen boards. Citizens on boards are like legislators and jurors—they are generalists representing the public and the taxpayers. They will never seem as well-informed as professionals.

However, this is not ineffectiveness, and the answer is not to hand the reins over to those who are experts. This tendency to put the recipients of public funds in charge of governing reflects a misguided belief that experts on implementation are best equipped to define the public interest.

They are not.

Those experts who receive and administer public funds are experts in what is done, but they are not experts in how current expenditures compare to competing expenditures or no expenditures at all. If anything, they have a conflict of interest which hinders their judgment.

Ceding governing power to the beneficiaries of tax funds is a formula for cementing the status quo in place, increasing costs and lowering accountability.

Camel Nose: New Employee Benefit-Lifelong Learning Accounts

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:56:20 PST

Currently, an employer may provide wages and benefits within parameters provided by the state and federal government.

A pleasant-sounding, voluntary program seeks to expand governmental involvement between employers and employees.

Lifelong Learning Accounts.

House Bill 2580 and Senate Bill 6141 seek to involve state government in defining and promoting a formalized employee training employee benefit.

Of course it seems pleasant enough. It probably costs little if anything as written. It is completely voluntary. The notion of a “Lifelong Learning Account” almost has a free market ring to it.

Except . . .

These concepts are also mentioned:

“approved education and training”
“approved career development plan”
“ensure that all state citizens are provided the opportunity . . . and that no workers are abandoned in their pursuit of excellence in training and education”

And the program is established within the Workforce Training and Coordinating Board, which already has a number of fuzzy duties like facilitating, coordinating, advocating, recommending, inventorying, planning, and strategizing.

And except . . .

Employers may already provide benefits related to training to their employees without the involvement of government.

Employees may already save their earnings for their training.

Financial institutions and financial counselors may already take actions to facilitate and promote the goals of the bills.

The only thing missing—and the only unique elements government has to offer—are control, tax funding and compulsion. Perhaps not as written but a camel’s nose is a camel’s nose (note pg. 18).

OG Pod: Public Meetings Behind Closed Doors

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:03:39 PST

Mike Reitz and Greg Overstreet discuss a recent news report that the Port of Longview attorney announced a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.

“Washington Voting Rights Act” would allow manipulation of elections

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:27:48 PST

Yesterday fifteen Democrat representatives introduced House Bill 2612, the Washington voting rights act, to protect against “racially-polarized voting” in our state.

The clear intent is to ensure the equality and fairness of elections. But what actually lurks at the end of this road, if followed, is the use of the courts to manipulate election results.

The Act would allow any voter in a protected class—race, skin color or language minority—to challenge in court the results of any election (state, county, city, school board, etc.) on the basis of racially-polarized voting. What’s that? It’s when “protected class members do not have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice or an equal opportunity to influence the outcome of an election.”

Or it’s when “there is a difference in voting preferences between members of a protected class and the rest of the electorate.”

I firmly believe that every legal voter should get an equal opportunity to cast their vote. But this bill is a wide-open invitation to use discrimination as an excuse to challenge elections. It’s not even necessary to show “proof of an intent on the part of the voters or elected officials to discriminate against a protected class.” Like the boy who cried wolf, HB 2612 is so broad it will allow anyone who doesn’t like an election outcome to manufacture a claim of discrimination.

That will both mask real equality issues and result in the opposite of what the authors intent: fair elections where every vote counts.

Hey Big Spender 2012

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:59:49 PST

Office of Financial Mangement
Tax & Fee Proposals (I-960) Information

Initiative 960 requires that OFM determine the ten-year cost to taxpayers of any proposed legislation that would raise taxes, impose new fees, or increase current fees.

The Freedom Foundation has compiled all tax and fee increases by bill sponsor. The resulting list of proposed tax and fee increases is shown below.

Senate Big Spender’s List [see entire Senate list]

House Big Spender’s List [see entire House list]

Big Spender’s List - Both Chambers Combined [see all Legislators list]

Put the Big Spender’s list on your website. Download the code [here].

Looking back at 2011

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:05:24 PST

2011 was a pivotal year for the Freedom Foundation’s Constitutional Law Center! This year we challenged Governor Chris Gregoire’s secretive practice of hiding public records. That case is now before the Washington State Supreme Court. We fought for improvements to the election system to prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots. We stood up for a local businessman who was told it was illegal to post a political sign in his front lawn. Through our public outreach efforts we were able to educate hundreds of Washington residents about the importance of defending liberty in the courts. Read about our 2011 efforts in this impact report.

The Constitutional Law Center seeks to hold public officials accountable for their actions and we defend individuals whose fundamental liberties are restricted by Big Brother government policies. 2012 proves to be a challenging year in our country and our state. We are able to defend liberty in the courts and offer free legal representation to our clients due to generous support from individuals like you. Please consider making a donation today!

Freedom Foundation labor recommendations introduced in Legislature

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:56:54 PST

A pair of bills introduced in the legislature would bring much-needed reform to government unions. House Bill 2525 would require government unions to publicly disclose detailed financial statements. Under current law, some public employees are required to pay union dues as a condition of employment but the union has no legal obligation to open its books to the members. HB 2525 would reduce the opportunity for waste and corruption and would allow a union member to evaluate whether he’s getting his money’s worth from the union.

House Bill 2526 would require government negotiations with unions to be open to the public. Currently these deals are negotiated behind closed doors. Taxpayers, legislators, and even union members are given little information until a final deal is reached.

Both bills are sponsored by Representatives David Taylor, Matt Shea, Bruce Chandler, Mark Hargrove, and Cary Condotta.

The Freedom Foundation has long recommended these common-sense policies that improve a union’s accountability to its membership. The ideas are pro-worker, but government union leaders will of course oppose both bills.

Election legislation HB 2204 headed for committee vote

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:53:19 PST

Several bills currently before the legislature are designed to boost participation in elections. As is often the case, however, some measures raise serious concerns for both those who would implement the changes—county auditors and their staff—and for anyone concerned about the integrity of elections.

I attended the public hearing yesterday for House Bill 2204, which is now headed for a vote in the House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee on Monday, January 16, at 1:30 p.m. The legislation would require counties to accept voter registrations right up to 5 p.m. on Election Day. The current deadline is eight days before an election, allowing county staff time to verify both the accuracy and the legality of the registration information.

Representatives of the County Auditors Association and the Secretary of State all testified against the bill, noting that many people will simply wait until whatever the deadline is, and that election staff have many other pressing tasks on Election Day. More about their opposition is at The Olympia Report and video from the hearing is below. Think about how much pressure would be on an election staff member with a line of registrants—and as each registration is accepted, the voter is given a ballot to vote. Whatever happens to that registration later—if it turns out to be fraudulent, for example—the vote is cast right there. HB 2204 would create a very potent opportunity for election fraud, as well as the risk of mistakes created in haste in a legal voter’s record.

All this did not dissuade Rep. Hans Dunshee, who responded to the practical concerns of those who actually do the hard work of implementing election laws by belittling them. Committee Chairman Sam Hunt’s manners are much better than Dunshee’s, but his politics are the same—he’s a cosponsor of HB 2204. The bill has 23 sponsors, all Democrats. Several liberal political groups testified in favor of the bill during the hearing, suggesting that it would help college students, the poor, and minorities to vote. Ironically, a recent study (PDF) from Wisconsin found that Election Day registration in that state slightly helped Republicans.

An even more recent investigation of actual Election Day registrations—we covered it Wednesday, and it hit the news big time as well—in Wisconsin showed that about one-third contained errors.

To stay in the know about what your representatives are up to in Olympia, be sure to visit our session page where legislative information is collected and you can sign up for email updates.

Rep. Jeff Morris, king of the sea?

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:52:07 PST

Wouldn’t it be nice if, just once, a legislator introduced a bill that said something like the following….

The legislature finds that the this industry is really, really important. Therefore, the legislature is determined to keep its nose out of this industry so that innovators can innovate, workers can work, and taxpayers don’t get hosed funding unnecessary make-work projects.

Alas, that would hardly boost a politician’s ego. And so we have House Billl 2444, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Morris, to establish a brand-new “Washington Center for Marine Innovation.” Oh yeah, and the end of the bill title: “and making an appropriation.” Maybe Morris has forgotten that there’s a budget crisis going on?

True to form, Morris’s bill starts out by noting how important the marine industry is in Washington state.

The legislature finds that the state derives significant economic benefits from its marine industry. The legislature also finds that the state’s marine industry is recognized worldwide as a model of excellence in ship and boat building, especially for its innovation and quality. The legislature finds that maintaining competitiveness in the marine industry is in the state’s best interest and depends on continued investment in research and development to foster continued innovation and improvements in technology.

Nothing controversial there, but maybe you already have that sinking feeling (never good when we’re talking boats). When a politician says an industry is really, really important, that usually is given to we the little people as the reason why said politician is going to spend some of his or her very important time meddling in said industry. And that’s exactly where Morris wants to go.

Therefore, the legislature intends to establish ... a public-private entity to promote research and development efforts to keep and grow the state’s competitive advantage in technological innovation and high quality standards of production and repair.

Think about it—why is Washington’s marine industry successful? Besides the natural resource of a vast inland waterway (and, more relevant in yesteryear, vast stands of timber), the success comes from the entrepreneurs and workers who have toiled here to design and build boats. And they didn’t do it for kicks or for charity, they did it to make a living. And, as politically incorrect as it is to say so, the bigger their profits the more competition and the more innovation. Inversely, if taxes or regulations eat up those profits, the industry—jobs and innovation—will suffer.

To a politician like Morris, however, this just isn’t good enough. How much better would it be for all those little people if Morris can create some new taxpayer-funded “center” to tell boat builders how to build boats? And the great opportunity for politicians is that there is always one more industry, always one more potential program. I have no doubt that Morris could produce an endless supply of good intentions. But taxpayers don’t have an endless supply of dollars, and the economy doesn’t have an endless ability to support every new “center” that politicians can dream up.

Judiciary committee hears testimony on mandatory retirement age for judges

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:42:38 PST

The Senate’s Judiciary Committee held a hearing earlier today on the mandatory retirement age for judges. The controversy on the issue arises from the state’s law requiring all judges to retire at the age of seventy-five, despite the status of their health or cognitive abilities.

This law is a slam to those judicial officials who reach the age of seventy-five and are competent and willing to serve the residents of Washington.

The following bills and resolutions were presented to the committee today:

1) Senate Bill 5147 eliminating the mandatory retirement age for judges by amending RCW 2.10.100 and repealing RCW 3.74.030;
2) Senate Bill 5323 amending the code to allow judges the option to retire at either the end of the calendar year in which the judge reaches the age of seventy-five or the expiration of the judge’s term of office after attaining seventy-five years of age;
3) Senate Bill 6025 eliminating the mandatory retirement age for district judges;
4) Senate Joint Resolution 8200 amending the state constitution so that judges have the option to retire at the expiration of judge’s term after reaching the age of seventy-five; and
5) Senate Joint Resolution 8204 eliminating the mandatory retirement age for judges by amending Article IV, section 3(a) of the Constitution of the state of Washington and the ability of the legislature to fix a lesser age for mandatory retirement of judges.

Three judiciary committee members, Senators Kline, Hargrove, and Harper, were among the sponsors for the bills.

Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander (Retired) testified at the hearing. Before he began, Alexander disclaimed that he stood no benefit from changes of the law regarding mandatory retirement age for judges.

Alexander stated that he would do away with all retirement ages for all officials if it was his choice. He said he believes that decisions such as this are better left to the voters.

Costs associated with amending the constitution to eliminate the retirement age are a concern for the senators. Alexander testified that it is hard for him to believe the costs for an amendment would be as high as estimated.

Suggestions were made to tackle the issue in steps and start with SB 6025 if costs are an issue. Eliminating the mandatory retirement age for district judges is a statutory change, and would cost significantly less.

The Senate Judicial Committee now stands to make a decision on what is more important, the costs of amending the constitution or the rights of voters to choose qualified judges.

An editorial published last month by The Olympian provides more information on the Freedom Foundation’s view on this issue.

Election Day registration results in 33% error rate

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:42:34 PST

MacIver News Service, the same folks that broke the “Fake Doctor Notices” story during the union protests in Wisconsin last year, are back with a new story about a shocking error rate in voter registrations. It seems relevant because the Washington legislature is considering a bill to allow similar Election Day registration in Washington state (HB 2204).

A citizen’s group conducted a seven month investigation into 11,000 people who registered and voted on the same day in a 2011 election. They found a 33.7% error rate—3,739 people in all. The errors included things like someone using an Illinois traffic citation to prove Wisconsin residency.

You can read the full report here.

This is just one example of how same day voter registration reduces accuracy. Rather than having eight days, as Washington election officials do now, to verify registration info, they’ll have just a few hours on the busiest day of the year. Not exactly a recipe for ballot integrity.

HB 2204 is up for a hearing in the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Pocket gopher not imperiled

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:51:42 PST

For almost a year now, we’ve been talking to Thurston County about the pocket gopher. We’ve written letters and opinion pieces. We’ve held a multitude of townhalls and small group meetings. We’ve been telling anyone that will listen about the pocket gophers and how they are not endangered—like the Thurston County Commissioner would like you to believe.

It didn’t take much investigation to realize that pocket gophers are everywhere. They abound in numbers and they live in a variety of habitats.Stubbornly, the Thurston County Commissioners have been blind to the facts, and have widely cast massive regulations that have created real life-changing harm to citizens impacted by these new rules. The Commissioner’s rules, however misguided, do align with their radical environmental agenda—“saving” the environment at any cost—even if the rules harm the very citizens they serve.

Today the Olympian’s Editorial Board wrote a piece about the pocket gopher encouraging citizens to “pay close attention and hold government officials accountable, because the future of this community will be shaped by forthcoming rulings”. They likened the outcome of pocket gopher regulations to rival the economic devastation of the spotted owl listing.

A year ago, a few of us took up the cause to protect Thurston County citizens from the pointless regulations levied by the Thurston County Commissioners. We were working to tell unknowing citizens about what was going on. Many joined in and volunteered with our growing movement. We have been steadfast in our desire to tell the truth and haven’t given up in spite of stonewalling bureaucrats.

Today the tide is turning. When the Olympian comes out parroting the Freedom Foundation’s talking points, well, let’s just say it’s very unusual. I’d have to say that the Commissioners are now standing alone on this one. It’s time for the Commissioners to surrender to the truth.

—-

Olympian Editorial Board: Pocket gopher decision must be based on solid evidence
April 2011 Op-ed: Thurston County restricting rights of property owners to protect ‘pest’

More information about STOP Thurston County [website]
STOP Thurston County Facebook Group [click here]
Donate to STOP Thurston County [click here]