Jmercier

One of the more interesting debates happening in Olympia right now is how to pay for the paid family leave entitlement put into law last year. Count me as one of the naive individuals who thought the legislature was supposed to figure out the details of a program before adopting it.

Apparently last year's faith based punt on the family leave entitlement hasn't put a damper on some lawmakers' desire to adopt new programs without figuring out the details first. Consider the following statement from Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown concerning the proposal to adopt a sales tax rebate for the state's low income.

According to The Olympian: “Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said it might be necessary to create the program this year but determine the amount of assistance next year when the state's budget outlook is clearer.”

The Yakima Herald is encouraging lawmakers to take a deep breath and not move forward with this type of faith based budgeting:

"The Seattle Times reported Friday that Democratic leaders in Olympia are pushing Senate Bill 6809, which starting next year would provide a sales-tax break for low-income families of as much as $470.

About 350,000 households in the state would be eligible for the proposed rebate, which calls for the state to provide a 10 percent match to people who qualify for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit . . . Projected hit on the state treasury: About $120 million every two years.

But that's not all. Even if it's approved, Washington residents would not be able to apply for the credit until next year because the state Department of Revenue hasn't even had time to determine just how much it would cost to administer the plan. It's expected to take several months for the state to set up a system to handle the paperwork involved.

The unknown costs of such an ongoing program are reason enough to shelve it.

Have state lawmakers already forgotten that an expected $1.4 billion surplus at the end of the current budget cycle is expected to turn into a deficit of as much as $600 million by the end of the 2009-2011 budget period . . . We said before the session began that this is not a good time for state lawmakers to embark on costly new programs -- including this election-year grandstanding.

If majority-party Democrats insist on railroading this ill-advised legislation through this session, then we would call upon Gregoire to heed her own advice about "save the surplus" and veto it to show that she meant what she said."

Meanwhile, The Seattle PI warns today that "Reality will bite state budget."

"Gov. Chris Gregoire and leading Democrats in the House and Senate have reached one early agreement in this year's budget negotiations: It's time for a reality check.

Anticipating a bleak revenue forecast, they've agreed to start looking for places to trim the $33 billion budget they passed last year. They say they want to have their priorities in order in case the slowing economy forces them to find efficiencies or even cut programs altogether.

"We're not taking for granted that everything that was budgeted last year is going to go forward this year," said Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane.

Neither she nor any other Democratic leaders provided specific examples of what might have to be cut.

Gone are the halcyon days of a skyrocketing real estate market and a ballooning economy that had led to back-to-back-to-back upward adjustments in the state's revenue forecasts.

And gone is the free and easy feeling about spending, the unflinching commitment to "targeted investments" that Democrats have enjoyed for the past three years.

The upcoming revenue forecast comes out on Valentine's Day, but given the circumstances no one is expecting a very rosy message from the state's top economist, ChangMook Sohn."

A bill introduced today (SB 6621) would hold state employees accountable for lost or damaged state equipment left in their care. This proposal appears to address a problem highlighted by the State Auditor. An audit of the Department of Labor and Industries in 2006 found:

"During our audit, the Department discovered that 105 items with a total cost of more than $180,000 were lost or missing. The Department stated that a search could not locate the items. The items subsequently were removed from the inventory. These assets included 24 digital cameras, eight laptop computers and five camcorders."

If adopted, SB 6621 would clarify the culpability of those who lose state equipment:

"Sec. 6. Cont!
rolling agencies shall establish the degree of responsibility and liability of their state employees, as well as appropriate punitive measures for gross negligence or misuse of controlled property by their employees. State employees shall be advised of any liability they may incur due to their custody of controlled property and the procedures to follow when an item is reported as lost, stolen, damaged, or destroyed. Employee liability shall not exceed one-half of an employee's monthly salary.

Sec. 7. A state employee who intentionally, willfully, or with gross negligence damages controlled property shall be financially liable for the cost of repair or replacement of damaged controlled property unless his or her supervisor determines that there are mitigating circumstances that justify a waiver of liability. Such justification shall be documented and sent to the state auditor's office for publication on the state auditor's web site. Controlled property that cannot!
be repaired economically or is not marketable should be destr!
oyed and the property control number kept on file by the controlling agency."

The State Auditor is moving full steam ahead with the performance audit authority granted by the voter approved I-900. It looks like, in the case of the recent Port of Seattle performance audit, lawmakers may be responding. Consider the following bills introduced this session:

• HB 2744: Prohibiting lobbying activities by a Washington public ports association
• HB 2743: Prohibiting port districts from using tax revenues for lobbying purposes
• HB 2742: Prohibiting certain port districts from using eminent domain powers
• HB 2741: Creating greater transparency in the decision-making processes of port districts
• SB 6281: Limiting property tax levies for ports in counties with large populations

The Olympian in an editorial yesterday encouraged lawmakers to take the results of performance audits seriously:

"Eyman's initiative wisely predicted that government officials would drag their feet when it comes to following audit recommendations. To prevent that, Initiative 900 requires that at least one public hearing be held within 30 days of the release of the audit. I-900 requires lawmakers to take the audit findings into account when assembling the state budget. And lawmakers must issue a report to the people on progress toward the recommendations. That report must justify the Legislature's reason for not following individual recommendations and state why corrective actions were not taken . . .

If lawmakers want to ignore performance audits, override the recommendations, stall and obfuscate, they do so at their own peril and can expect to get hit with one initiative after another. If legislators won't lead government reforms, the public will."

The Auditor's efforts are also getting attention nationally. The Washington D.C. based Heritage Foundation will be holding an event next month on congestion relief with the focus: "The Seattle Congestion Performance Audit: Can it be Replicated for Other States and the Federal Government?"

Kudos to the State Auditor!

Updated (2:35 p.m.)

Linda Long (director of the state's performance audit program) just finished testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government & Audit Review on the impact of performance audits. Her testimony included the following information:

• Performance audits issued to date - 9
• Audits in progress - 8
• Total audit recommendations - 434
• Potential cost savings identified (over five-year period) - $3.2 billion

Today's Everett Herald decries the legislature's abuse of the emergency clause. The paper is urging lawmakers to adopt a constitutional amendment restricting their use of emergency clauses to circumvent the people's right of referendum:

"Nothing fuels voters' cynicism more than being misled by government officials. If state lawmakers want to build trust with voters, they should start by coming clean on their abuse of the emergency clause, a tactic they've used often in the recent past to preempt voters' right to second-guess them on controversial legislation.

Washington's Constitution grants the people considerable power through the initiative and referendum processes. The latter gives citizens an opportunity to veto unwanted laws passed by the Legislature by filing a referendum within 90 days after the session in question ends. If enough signatures are gathered, voters get to decide whether to keep the law as passed or reject it.

The Constitution makes one exception: The right to referendum can be bypassed if a bill is "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions."

Trouble is, lawmakers have taken that definition beyond any test of reasonableness, tacking emergency clauses onto 740 bills in the past 11 years. That's 17 percent of all bills enacted. With that many emergencies, it's remarkable we've survived."

Last month the Spokesman Review also weighed in on this issue:

"Citizens' ability to write or reverse state law is renowned in Washington and other Western states whose constitutions were adopted under the populist influence of the late 19th century. The initiative and referendum have been used by the left as well as the right to remind elected legislators who ultimately is the boss.

The Washington Legislature hasn't taken the reminder lying down, though. Its members routinely protect measures they approve from the referendum process by including an emergency clause.

This pattern should trouble citizens, regardless of personal ideology. It neutralizes a constitutional protection that exists to keep elected representatives accountable to voters, even after the election . . .

As the Legislature prepares to convene in January, the Washington Policy Center is planning to push a constitutional amendment that would require a 60 percent vote in the Legislature on any bill with an emergency clause. That wouldn't be an arduous test if conditions truly match the language of the emergency clause: "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions."

Click here to learn more about the abuse of the emergency clause and the proposed reform to restore our right of referendum.

The Everett Herald has joined with the Columbian in editorializing in favor of WPC's proposal for a free searchable website of state spending and performance information. From today's paper (in-part):

"Much of the state's budget information exists online today, but it's a burden for most citizens to find it or make sense of it. It needs to be organized in a way that's accessible and useful.

A user-friendly, searchable budget Web site would enable citizens watchdogs to see how -- and how effectively -- tax money is being spent. It would put accurate information at the fingertips of anyone interested in learning how government is going about its responsibilities. Successes could be built upon, shortcomings more quickly addressed.

There's nothing to keep lawmakers from adopting the proposal this year. Similar sites already exist in Texas and Missouri. A federal version, approved by Congress unanimously, went live last month (usaspending.org). One Washington agency, the Department of General Administration, already has a searchable Web site showing its public contracts. Microsoft stands ready to design it, and costs figure to be low. Democratic state Auditor Brian Sonntag and Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna, two leading voices for open government, have both expressed support.

How the state spends taxpayers' money is a mysterious and convoluted process to most folks. Lawmakers shouldn't be fearful of shining light on it, even if some warts are exposed. The more open government is, the more effective it's likely to become."

Even with a short legislative session about to begin this reform is very much in reach. Stay tuned.

Vancouver's lead newspaper, The Columbian, has an editorial today in support of WPC's proposal for a free, online searchable website of state spending and performance information. The Columbian writes:

"When Republican State Attorney General Rob McKenna and Democratic State Auditor Brian Sonntag agree on an idea, Washingtonians would do well to pay attention. Both leaders feverishly pursue policies over politics. Both men have powerful reputations as independent problem solvers. McKenna and Sonntag support a proposed budget database that would allow taxpayers to research state spending on the Internet. It's a superb idea, and Washingtonians should feel slightly embarrassed that Congress beat our state to the punch . . .

On Monday, state Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, announced she will introduce the Taxpayer Transparency Act in the Legislature's 2008 session, which begins Monday. We hope lawmakers expedite passage of the bill . . .

A similar bill was introduced last year but was not granted a public hearing. We hope that, with Congress setting an example, swift action can be taken this year. Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center this week described the proposal as "a win-win for everyone, except possibly for those who fear something embarrassing about public spending might be revealed." Clark County legislators, take note. Constituents will be watching how you vote on this one."

The editorial makes reference to information from a press release WPC issued earlier this week concerning the support of Sonntag and McKenna for this reform. 

Here is a link to Sen. Stevens' press release announcing her proposal.

Last week the Tacoma News Tribune also commented on this reform.

While the rest of us were enjoying our Christmas gifts, the state Supreme Court was putting a big bow on its present to governmental agencies in a 5-4 ruling granting a huge exemption from public accountability.

One of the four dissenting Justices, Charles Johnson, had this to say about what the Court did, "The majority essentially creates a public nondisclosure act, turning the act inside out so that documents are withheld from the public unless the public can demonstrate that no remotely connected litigation exists, past, present, or future."

Here's how the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin described the ruling:

"The Washington state Supreme Court last week provided public agencies with a shield against the state's Public Records Act that is broad enough that only the most honest — or most inept — public agency will ever have to worry about releasing potentially embarrassing records again.

All an agency will have to do is to have all documents pass through the hands of its attorney and then claim them as covered by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. It can seal the deal by hiding behind the court's expanded interpretation of the "controversy" exemption in the Public Records Law.

Then it can tighten its grip even more by forcing anyone who requests a record to defend his request in court.

It's too bad that before issuing the 5-4 decision the justices didn't do a little more research on the history and intent of the law. The idea was that everything the government did — either in record form or during a meeting — belongs to the public. A very small and narrow list of exceptions was included. If it didn't fit this tightly written list of exemptions, it was open to the public.

Since those historic days, special interests have tagged on numerous other ways in which what should belong to the public can be withheld.

The court is correct when it says agencies need an attorney-client privilege so they can communicate freely. But it was never meant to be a way to disenfranchise the public . . . Justices Barbara Madsen and Mary Fairhurst tried to shift the blame and say it is up to the Legislature, not the courts, to deal with this.

Nice try. On many issues this would be a valid point, but the justices are there because they are supposed to have good judgment and are able to make reasoned decisions. This ruling fails that standard.

But Madsen and Fairhurst are right about one thing: We don't have to accept this. The governor and the Legislature have been examining the proliferation of roadblocks to the public's ability to keep tabs on the government. Add this to the list of things that must be fixed."

More details about the case at og-blog.