In November the people of Washington will vote on
Initiative 1033. The measure is sponsored by Tim Eyman and would create
a new revenue limit for the state, counties and cities with the goal of
annually reducing property taxes. Eyman calls Initiative 1033 the
“Lower Property Tax Act of 2009.” Initiative 1033 is the latest in a
series of initiatives considered by voters which seek to control the
growth of state government, though it is the first to include local
governments under its requirements, and it is the first to focus
primarily on providing ongoing tax rebates to property owners.
According to the state’s Office of Financial Management, passage of
Initiative 1033 would result in approximately $5.9 billion in state
property tax rebates and $2.8 billion in local property tax rebates
going to citizens by 2015. At the same time state and local revenue
available for spending increases would grow each year by an amount
based on population growth plus inflation. Eyman argues that Initiative
1033 attempts to close loopholes created by the legislature to an
earlier voter approved initiative, Initiative 601. Enacted by voters in
1993, Initiative 601 sought to improve on the shortcomings of
Initiative 62 adopted in 1979.
The state Appeals Court Division II ruled this morning to invalidate three of the Department of General Administration's (GA) rules for implementing the competitive contracting provisions of the 2002 Civil Service Reform. The ruling affirms a May 23, 2008, decision by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham. The Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) sued to have the rules thrown out.
At issue are WAC 236-51-006, 236-51-010(11) and 236-51-225. The controversy focuses on what it means to be a "displaced employee" due to an agency competitively contracting work.
The state noted in its
href="http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/government/WFSEvGAbrief.pdf" target="_blank">legal brief:
Under General Administration’s rules, a fair bidding process is established allowing an agency to determine with relative ease and certainty which civil service employees would be entitled to the opportunities offered under RCW 41.06.142. In contrast, the Federation’s approach would result in practical problems in agencies being able to identify which employees may access the opportunities set out in RCW 41.06.142(1)(b) and (c), i.e., to receive notice that the agency is considering contracting, to offer alternatives, to form an employee business unit, to bid on the contract, and to be considered for employment if the contract is awarded to a non-employee business unit. As discussed earlier, these are not theoretical problems. If an agency fails to properly identify employees and ful!
fill the requirements under RCW 41.06.142 and General Administ!
ration’s rules, the agency might well have to begin the entire contract solicitation process over, resulting in a loss of money, time, and efficiency.
The Federation’s approach would also lead to absurd results if an employee business unit did win the contract. Under the Federation’s approach, an agency could propose a contract that would cover some of the duties of one or more civil service employees but not result in the employees being laid off or reclassified. The employees would continue to be fully employed by the agency, at the same salary, in the same job classifications. However, the employees would be entitled to form an employee business unit and bid on the contract. Assuming the employee business unit won the contract, when would the employee business unit members, who remain employed full time by the agency doing their normal duties, perform the contract? On weekends? At night? Neither of these t!
imes may meet the agency’s need to be in communication with or have oversight over those performing the contract. Or would such employees seek to cut back on their normal duties for the agency? However, civil service employees have no right to unilaterally cut back on their hours . . .
The legislative history of the Personnel System Reform Act of 2002 does not show that General Administration’s rules defining displaced employee are inconsistent with RCW 41.06.142. In its challenge below, the Federation argued that RCW 41.06.142 was intended to continue in place the statutory and judicial restrictions against contracting out that were in place prior to the 2002 act. The Federation is incorrect in this assertion.
As discussed above, the 2002 reform act rested on three “legs”: Granting greater collective bargaining rights to state employees; removing the general restriction against state agencies to contracting f!
or services customarily and historically performed by civil service emp!
loyees; and making various changes to the civil service system. The Federation’s view that the 2002 reform act essentially retained the severe limitations on contracting out that were in existence prior to 2002 fails to acknowledge the political trade-offs that made passage of the 2002 act possible. In exchange for full-scope collective bargaining, which some unions had been seeking for decades, state agencies got most of the restrictions lifted on contracting out civil service work. The legislature did not retain the general prohibition against agencies contracting for services customarily and historically performed by civil service employees. On the contrary, it repealed the statute (former RCW 41.06.380) that had embodied that general prohibition.
Even before today's ruling, the use of competitive contracting by state agencies under the 2002 reform has been less than stellar. A performance audit conducted by the Joint Legis!
lative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) in January 2007 found:
“…few agencies have competitively contracted for services in the 16 months since receiving authorization to do so. Agency managers reported two main reasons for not competitively contracting. First, managers perceive the process itself to be complicated and confusing, providing a disincentive to pursue competitive contracting. Second, competitive contracting is a subject of collective bargaining, which creates additional challenges by requiring labor negotiations. Managers must bargain, at a minimum, the impacts of competitive contracting. Additionally, some agency collective bargaining agreements include provisions which prohibit agencies from competitively contracting.”
Regardless of whether the state appeals today's ruling on the GA rul!
es, Washington policymakers should simplify the bidding process to make!
it easier for agencies to use competition to improve services. Lawmakers should also shield contracting out from union and political influence by removing it from the collective bargaining process. Improving service to the public is too important to be a bargaining chip in government labor negotiations.
Protests were held across the country this past Saturday by citizens frustrated with the spending decisions being made in Washington D.C. Among the local protests were rallies at the state capitol in Olympia and in Yakima. Here are some photos of the Olympia rally.
When asked by The Yakima Heraldwhy he was at the Yakima rally, sixty-nine year old Jack Weston replied:
“Bank bailouts should never have happened. Taking over the car companies should never have happened,” he said.
He ultimately came away encouraged. “I’m doing a small part in protecting this county.”
The largest of the spending protest occurred in Washington D.C. with a!
n estimated tens of thousands converging on the Capitol. The New York Times reports the number of protesters took authorities by surprise:
A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.
On a cloudy and cool day, the demonstrators came from all corners of the country, waving American flags and handwritten signs explaining the root of their frustrations. Their anger stretched well beyond the health care legislation moving through Congress, with shouts of support for gun rights, lower ta!
xes and a smaller government . . .
tyle="margin-left: 40px;">The demonstrators numbered well into the tens of thousands, though the police declined to estimate the size of the crowd. Many came on their own and were not part of an organization or group. But the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours.
The federal budget deficit for the first 11 months of fiscal year 2009 was almost $1.4 trillion, CBO estimates, close to $900 billion greater than the deficit recorded through August 2008. Outlays were $518 billion (or 19 percent) higher and revenues $365 billion (or 16 percent) lower than the amounts recorded during the same period last year!
. . .
Outlays for the first 11 months of fiscal year 2009 neared $3.3 trillion, 19 percent more than in the same period last year. (The increase comes to 20 percent when the amounts are adjusted for shifts in the timing of certain payments.) Much of the growth in outlays stems from spending for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), cash disbursements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and spending for ARRA. Without those effects, total federal spending would be up by only 7 percent.
Thus far, the Treasury has recorded $174 billion in costs for the TARP and $83 billion in net cash payments to the GSEs. Through August, approximately $85 billion has been spent as a result of ARRA. About one-third of that amount ($28 billion) was for the temporary increase in the federal share of Medicaid costs. Unemployment benefits also have been boosted—by $16 billion—because of ARRA; higher unemployment and other legislat!
ed increases also contributed to the rapid growth in that program’s s!
pending since last year. Other provisions of ARRA contributed about $40 billion to the increase in outlays for “Other Activities,” mainly for payments to Social Security beneficiaries, grants to states (from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund), student aid, and food and nutrition programs.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks has rejected Tim Eyman's legal challenge of I-1033's fiscal impact statement prepared by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). This means OFM's I-1033 analysis will be included without alteration in the voters' pamphlet.
According to OFM, passage of Initiative 1033 would result in approximately $5.9 billion in state property tax rebates and $2.8 billion in local property tax rebates going to citizens by 2015. At the same time state and local revenue available for spending increases would grow each year by an amount based on population growth plus inflation.
These tables (click link) show the year-by-year revenue growth, I-1033 fiscal growth factor and forecasted property tax rebates pro!
jected by OFM.
Yesterday the Washington Research Council released its analysis of I-1033. Here is the Council's conclusion:
Passage of Initiative 1033 would reduce revenues available to state, city and county budgets in the coming years. Revenues in excess of the limit would be returned to property taxpayers as relief in the following year, beginning in 2012. Also, the pattern of property tax relief may well be lumpy.
The state’s recent experience with I-601 may be instructive. In its early years, the initiative successfully kept a lid on state spending. Over time, lawmakers repeatedly amended the initiative. Some analysts argue that the ability to amend voter-approved initiatives gives lawmakers the flexibility necessary to adapt to changing fiscal conditions. Others argue that the statut!
ory initiatives here, unlike the constitutional measures in ot!
her states, make it too easy for legislators to circumvent the will of the voters. Typically, legislators have been reluctant to overturn or make substantial amendments in initiatives in the years immediately after passage.
The effects of I-1033 on cities and counties will likely vary considerably. Some communities have substantial population growth, while others have plateaued or even fallen into decline. Economic conditions, property valuation, taxing authorities, and demand for public services are far from uniform across local governments in our state.
Initiative backers say there’s a simple remedy to a too-tight limit: Ask the voters to loosen the restraints. Opponents, on the other hand, object to ballot-box budgeting, which can frustrate long-range planning, delay decision making, and add another layer of election costs to tight budgets. That philosophical debate has been ongoing since well before the 1993 vote to adopt I-601 and is unlikely !
to end this year with I-1033.
However I-1033 plays out over time, the immediate effect will be to hold revenue growth below current projections for the state’s major governments during the anticipated economic recovery, while providing uneven property tax relief beginning in three years.
The Washington Policy Center will be releasing its review of I-1033 in the coming weeks.
Earlier this week I mentioned Tim Eyman's lawsuit against the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to change
the details in the fiscal note the agency created for the voters'
pamphlet forInitiative 1033.
Virtually every argument that Plaintiffs advance to take issue with OFM's stated assumptions rests on rules of statutory construction, contrasts Plaintiffs' interpretation of the measure with OFM's interpretation, appeals to the exercise of "logic", or acknowledges ambiguity in the measure. Endeavoring to resolve ambiguities in a proposed law surely entails the exercise of judgment and discretion. And even where Plaintiffs alternatively claim that the scope of I-1033 is clear, the language of the measure belies the meaning that Plaintiffs !
would give to I-1033.
For example, one of Plaintiffs' principal claims is that there is no basis in I-1033 for OFM's assumption that "general fund revenue" for purposes of I-1033 is confined to "taxes, fees and other governmental charges." According to Plaintiffs, "taxes, fees and other governmental charges" are merely illustrative of "general fund revenue" under I-1033. Inexplicably, in making this claim, Plaintiffs fail to note the measure actually defines "general fund revenue" and defines it in a manner entirely consistent with OFM's fiscal impact statement assumptions as to the scope of "general fund revenue."
One of Eyman's complaints is that the "Fiscal Impact Statement erroneously assumes that the initiative's
reference to 'taxes fees or other governmental charges' limits the
types of revenue included within the revenue limit applicable to the
Here is the declaration of Julie Murray, Legislative Director for OFM, describing the process OFM used to build the fiscal impact statement in question.
Here is the declaration of Shane Hamlin, Assistant Director of Elections for the Secretary of State, disputing Eyman's claim that there is still time to change the voters' pamphlet if the Judge orders OFM to create a new fiscal impact statement.
The hearing to resolve this dispute is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Friday.
As reported by The Olympian, Tim Eyman is suing the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to change the details in the fiscal note the agency created for the voters' pamphlet forInitiative 1033. I-1033 would create a new revenue
limit for the state and several local governments with the goal of
annually reducing property taxes. As required by law, OFM conducted the fiscal impact statement on I-1033.
The Fiscal Impact Statement erroneously assumes that the initiative's reference to "taxes fees or other governmental charges" limits the types of revenue included within the revenue limit applicable to the state;
The Fiscal Impact Statement erroneously assumes that government charges for publications and documents are not included in the revenue limit;
The Fiscal Impact Statement is misleading in excluding "grant and loan repayments", "indirect and prior cost recoveries," and "unclaimed property" because it gives the impression that revenues to the applicable funds will not be treated as revenues to the applicable funds;
The Fiscal Impact Statement is erroneous in excluding "federal and state direct and indirect grants" from the revenue limits applicable to counties and cities;
The Fiscal Impact Statement is erroneous and misleading in excluding from the revenues of counties and cities "charges for contracted services performed by counties and cities" and "charges for enterprise activities that are not governmental in nature;"
The Fiscal Impact Statement is erroneous and misleading in excluding "inter-fund and inter-departmental charges;" and
The Fiscal Impact Statement's assertion that this measure is applicable to towns is erroneous.
In an August 21 letter, OFM Director Victor Moore noted:
OFM's role in interpreting the statute extends only to developing assumptions to estimate any projected increase or decrease in revenues, costs, expenditures, or indebtedness that the state or local governments will experience if the ballot measure were approved by state voters. Only a court of law can definitively interpret a statute, and therefore, all relevant factors used for our estimates, including areas of statutory interpretation, are clearly identified as assumptions within the fiscal impact statement.
In addition, prior to submitting the statement to the Secretary of State's Office, OFM provided the assumptions to the Attorney General's Office (AGO) for its review in accordance with the statute referenced above. The assumptions were returned to OFM unchanged. The AGO did not suggest or require any changes and found no flaws in th!
e assumptions as presented. For these reasons, we believe our fiscal impact statement assumptions do not require revision.
Yesterday the state Sunshine Committee voted 8-1 to recommend the Legislature repeal its exemption to the public records act for legislative records. State legislators are currently the only officials in the state with this exemption. The lone no vote was Sen. Adam Kline, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In this state, the 2007 Legislature passed a law that shields
journalists from having to reveal their sources in court. Kline was
prime sponsor of that shield-law Senate bill. Representative Lynn
Kessler, another Sunshine Committee member, was prime sponsor of the
identical House version, which became law.
Kline says he asked journalists on the Sunshine Committee “why [a
source's identity] should be confidential to them and not to us.” He
says he didn't get an answer. “ There is no difference,” he says. “They admit it by their silence.”
Kline readily concedes that some communications from constituents are “venal,” but he thinks the public interest in protecting potential whistle blowers outweighs the public interest in exposing people who, say, try to buy votes. Kline reasons that some people who have sensitive information won't come forward if they know their identities can be made public. Is that speculation? Of course, Kline says. But he suggests it is also speculative that the lack of a shield law before 2007 kept sources from communicating with journalists. “I feel that those people [who provide sensitive information to legislators] need to be shielded just as they are when they go to a news reporter,” he says.
The press, however, did answer the Senator's question at the Sunshine Committee hearing yesterday. Here is the exchange between Sen. Kline an!
d Rowland Thompson, Executive Director of Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington:
Committee recommends that the legislature eliminate the Legislative
exemption, which excludes from public scrutiny personal records of the
legislature, including e-mails, correspondence, except when designated
as a public record by a “official action of the Senate or House of
Representatives.” Every other legislative body in the state of
Washington is fully subject to the public records act. There is no
principled reason why the state legislature should be exempt.
Implementing this recommendation would require amendment of RCW 42.56.010(2) as follows: "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.
This change addresses the Legislature's
double standard when it comes to compliance with the public records
law. Now it is up to the Legislature to act on the Sunshine Committee's recommendation next session.
Voting yes: Thomas Carr, Senator Pam Roach, Representative Lynn Kessler, Rowland Thompson, Ken Bunting, Patience Rogge, Ramsey Ramerman, and Frank Garred.
This November Washingtonians will vote on Initiative 1033. The measure is sponsored by Tim Eyman and would create a new revenue limit for the state and several local governments with the goal of annually reducing property taxes.
Due to the similarities between I-1033 and Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), opponents of I-1033 have sought to compare the impact of TABOR in Colorado to what voters can expect to happen in Washington if I-1033 is enacted.
Without debating the details of I-1033, it is worth considering the claims about TABOR's impact in Colorado.
In Colorado, core public structures deteriorated under TABOR. From 1992 to 2005, the state experienced significant decay in health care, K-12!
and higher education, transportation infrastructure, and other basic public services.
The opponents use a bevy of statistics to make their case.
As Mark Twain once noted, however, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Illustrating this observation, the Tax Foundation has come to a different conclusion about TABOR's effect in Colorado. In a report refuting some of the statistics cited, the Tax Foundation noted in 2005:
The state of Colorado is under assault. Opponents of Colorado’s
Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) are waging a well coordinated but
misleading attack on Colorado’s reputation. This attack takes the form
of a number of rankings and statistics that purport to show that the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights has decimated Colorado. These rankings and
statistics are based on the assumption that if Colorado ranks poorly on
things like the adequacy of prenatal care and education spending, then
Colorado is failing to adequately care for and educate its citizens,
and that the Taxpayer Bill of Rights must be to blame. A closer look at
the attacks shows that they fail to prove that the amount a state
spends on health care and education determines quality, and they also
fail to tell the whole truth about the rankings and statistics of the
state of Colorado [please see study and links below for details] . . .
Contrary to the assertions of its opponents, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights has not decimated Colorado. In other measures of fiscal standing, not mentioned by the opponents of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Colorado compares very favorably to other states. Colorado’s per capita tax burden is the tenth lowest in the nation, ranks as the 8th friendliest business-tax climate (the highest ranking of any state with a sales tax and a corporate and personal income tax), and ranks as the state with the 2nd highest level of economic freedom. It is simply inaccurate to say that Colorado is a sub-standard state based on selectively cited statistics and national rankings, and even more inaccurate to blame the Taxpayer Bill of Rights for any perceived inadequacies.
I-1033 opponents also note the voters in Colorado !
suspended TABOR in 2005, purportedly proving their dislike for the results provided. While this temporary suspension until 2010 did occur, TABOR remains popular in Colorado. In fact, an effort to permanently repeal the TABOR state tax refunds (Amendment 59) failed in 2008 with 55 percent voting against. This means the people of Colorado have decided that TABOR will be back to its full force and effect in 2010.
Does this mean that I-1033 is good or bad policy? That's a debate that will go on till election day but it shouldn't hinge on misrepresenting Colorado's TABOR.
State Auditor Brian Sonntag announced yesterday he is creating an Open Government Task Force with Attorney General Rob
McKenna. The purpose of the new Task Force
is to study and make recommendations on the creation of an
administrative board to rule on complaints of violations regarding the
state's open government laws. The Task Force meetings are scheduled for
October 5, 2009 and November 2, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the
Attorney General's Office in Olympia. Below is a list of the Task Force members:
Rob McKenna, Attorney General
Brian Sonntag, State Auditor
Tim Ford, Open Government Ombudsman for Attorney General's Office
Task Force Members:
Paula Adams, Public Information and Records Officer for King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
Jim Doherty, Legal Consultant, Municipal Research and Services Center
Judy Endejan, Attorney, Graham and Dunn
Ruth Gordon, County Clerk for Jefferson County
Jerry Handfield, State Archivist for Secretary of State
John Hendrickson, Kenmore City Council Councilmember
Mary Hunt, Douglas County Commissioner District 3
Chris Hurst, State Representative, 31st District (member of State Government Committee)
Graham Johnson, (Executive Director of the Public Disclosure Commission 1974-1993)
Lynn Kessler, State Representative, 24th District – Majority Leader
Joel Kretz, State Representative, 7th District
Mark Lindquist, Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney
Louis Mitchell, Bremerton School Board of Directors
Bob Morton, Senator, 7th District
Shirley Nixon, Citizen Activist
Toby Nixon, President Washington Coalition for Open Government
Bob Partlow, Foster Parent Support and Recruitment for Department of Social and Health Services
Althea Paulson, Kitsap Regional Library Board Member
Kevin Phelps, Deputy County Executive & Executive Director of Operations & Infrastructure for Pierce County
Craig Ritchie, Attorney for City of Sequim
Rowland Thompson, Executive Director Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington
Here are additional details about the Open Government Task Force:
We [McKenna and Sonntag] created this Task Force to address growing concerns among governments and the public. State agencies and local governments face a logjam of citizen complaints, costly litigation over the PRA and the OPMA, and uncertainty regarding potential liability that may require payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and daily penalties. Citizens who are denied access to public records and public meetings have no choice other than to go to court, and lawsuits may take years to resolve and are costly. Going to court to enforce legal rights to access public records and public meetings is simply not an option for many citizens.
An efficient and inexpensive solution is needed to resolve complaints and provide greater access to public records and public meetings while reducing costs to governmental agencies and the public. Many !
states provide an independent administrative review process to resolve complaints without litigation. These states use administrative boards to offer services including mediation, dispute resolution, non-binding legal interpretations, investigation of potential violations, issuing final appealable rulings, offerings of legislative reform, and training public officials about their responsibilities under the law.
The first illegal teacher strike of the year may occur in the Kent School District. The question for parents and students who will be held hostage by this illegal action if teachers follow through with their threat, who will seek an injunction to uphold the law and ensure the school doors are open? Will the Kent PTA be the one to step up to the plate?
This is from the state PTA resolution on strikes, "Resolved, that the Washington State PTA will not support work stoppages and/or strikes which interrupt or disrupt the educational day."
An all-star panel participated in a Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) work session today discussing how the public records and open meetings acts should be enforced. Joining the PDC Commissioners on the panel were:
State Auditor Brian Sonntag
Representative Sam Hunt
Representative Marko Liias (sponsor of bill discussed)
Tim Ford, Open Government Ombudsman for the Attorney General’s Office
Toby Nixon, President Washington Coalition for Open Government
Dan Heid, Washington Municipal Attorney’s Association
Ramsey Ramerman, Attorney and state Sunshine Committee Member
Graham Johnson, former Executive Director of the PDC
The focus of the work session was HB 1784 introduced during the 2009 Legislative Session by Representatives Liias, Chase, Hasegawa, Appleton and Ormsby. The bill received a hearing but was not voted on. Here is a summary of HB 1784 from the House Bill report:
In 1971 the Legislature enacted the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). The OPMA requires that all meetings of the governing body of a public agency be open to and public, and all persons shall be allowed to attend.
Initiative 276, passed by the voters in 1972, established the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbyist activities, financial affairs of elective officers and candidates, and access to public records. That initiative also created the Public Disclosu!
re Commission (PDC), a five member, bipartisan citizen commission, to enforce the provisions of the campaign finance disclosure law.
Twenty years later, in 1992, the Fair Campaign Practices Act was enacted following passage of Initiative 134. Initiative 134 imposed campaign contribution limits on elections for statewide and legislative office, further regulated independent expenditures, restricted the use of public funds for political purposes, and required public officials to report gifts received in excess of $50.
Unlike the campaign finance disclosure laws, enforcement of the OPMA and the Public Records Act (PRA) must be pursued through the judicial system.
The powers of the PDC are expanded to include the enforcement of the OPMA and the PRA. The PDC is authorized to investigate, review and adjudicate complaints alleging violations of the OPMA and the PRA. The PDC is also authorized to issue interpretative opinions of the OPMA and the PRA!
. In addition, the PDC can provide confidential consultation r!
egarding a person's or agency's duties under the OPMA and the PRA.
Panelists were provided a work sheet asking their opinions on “Possible Elements of Open Government Oversight Agency” including:
Single agency to oversee open government
Independent of other agencies
Single agency head
Oversee open records
Oversee open meetings
Jurisdiction over state agencies
Jurisdiction over local agencies
Exclusive jurisdiction over disputes
Dual jurisdiction over disputes, with superior courts
Use Administrative Law Judges
Have mediation program
Have ombudsman program
Issue formal written opinions (oral or written)
Operate toll-free number
Track PRA/OPMA legislation
Submit annual report to Legislature
Effective date of agency
The discussion centered around common themes. From the citizen advocates: It is too hard for requestors to take on governmental entities in an open government dispute. From the government lawyers: There need to be more costs/restrictions on citizens to avoid abuse of the laws and burdening governmental entities.
There did seem to be some agreement that an independent oversight entity is needed though the devil is in the details for the panelists.
State Auditor Sonntag announced that he is creating an Open Government Task Force with Attorney General Rob McKenna to continue this discussion. The purpose of the new Task Force is to study and make recommendations on the creation of an administrative board to rule on complaints of violations regarding the state's open government laws. The Task Force meetings are scheduled for October 5, 2009 and November 2, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Attorney General's Office in Olympia.
Whether it is the PDC or an independent Open Government Ombudsman, citizens and government would benefit from an independent entity charged with enforcing the state's open government laws while also providing training and assistance. We discussed the need for this in our latest Policy Guide (page 8 of pdf).
With the country still at a fevered pitch over the national health care debate, the next controversial policy may already be in the works - changes to private pensions. Last year the Chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of alternatives approaches to the private pension system. In a report released yesterday GAO said (emphasis added):
The private pension systems of the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom represent alternative approaches to address these key risks, but they also pose trade-offs to consider in applying them in the U.S. We selected these countries from a larger group after an initial review indicated that their private pension systems addressed many of the risks that U.S. workers face and had the potential to yield useful lessons for the U.S. !
experience. Their systems offer ideas for mitigating risks in accumulating and preserving benefits, such as mandating coverage, sharing investment risk among workers and employers, restricting leakage, and using annuities to drawdown benefits.
Several proposals for alternative pension plan designs in the U.S. incorporate approaches to mitigate the risks faced by workers, such as incentives to increase voluntary coverage or mandating annuitization. However, these approaches also pose trade-offs and costs for workers and employers, and in some cases the federal government. In particular, important trade-offs arise with mandating coverage and contributions, guaranteeing investment returns, and annuitizing benefits. For example, mandatory approaches reduce risks but also raise concerns about the impact of higher benefit costs, particularly on small employers.
Any of this sound familiar to the current health care debate!
The New York Times has an interesting story about the growth in government employment across the nation as the recession hit even as the private sector was shedding jobs. From the article:
While the private sector has shed 6.9 million jobs since the beginning of the recession, state and local governments have expanded their payrolls and added 110,000 jobs, according to a report issued Thursday by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
The report, based on an analysis of federal jobs data, found that state and local governments steadily added jobs for eight months after the recession began in December 2007, with their employment peaking last August. State and local governments have since lost 55,000 jobs, but from the beginning of the recession through last month they gained!
a net of 110,000 jobs, the report found, in part because of the federal stimulus program.
Government jobs are always more stable than private sector jobs during downturns, but their ability to weather the current deep recession startled Donald J. Boyd, the senior fellow at the institute who wrote the report.
“I am a little surprised at the fact that state and local government has remained as stable as it has in the nation as a whole, given the depth of the current recession,” Mr. Boyd said in an interview.
The report offered several possible explanations for the disparity between the private and public sectors. It noted that there can be a short lag between an economic downturn and the time it hits states in the form of lower tax collections, and an even longer delay before the problems hit local governments in the form of reduced state aid and lower property tax collections.
This appears to also be the case in Washin!
gton. As shown by this table from fiscal.wa.gov, full-time equivalent positions at the state level grew rapidly during the previous budget only to be reduced in the current budget once projected revenues began to show the impact of the recession.
Here is one of the most striking tables from the Rockefeller Instituteemployment report.
Jason Mercier is Director of the Center for Government Reform at Washington Policy Center and is based in the Tri-Cities. He serves on the boards of the Washington Coalition for Open Government and CandidateVerification, and was an advisor to the 2002 Washington State Tax Structure Committee. Jason is an ex-officio for the Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce. In June 2010, former Governor Gregoire appointed Jason as WPC’s representative on her Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Panel.