Washington Policy Blog

While reviewing state personal service contracts back in July, a $50,000 lobbying contract for the University of Washington (UW) caught my attention. Unfortunately, the information listed on the Office of Financial Management's website didn't disclose what the lobbying was for so I asked the UW for a copy of the contract. Nearly two months from my first request, I finally received a copy of the contract today.

Turns out the $50,000 contract is for a consultant "to provide legislative drafting and fiscal analysis related to the 2008 request for state financial assistance to remodel Husky stadium." The contract was originally to expire March 31, 2008, but its terms have been extended until June 30, 2009.

The contract further notes the "consultant will be paid $175 per hour for his services, and receive reimbursement for associated reasonable expenses, including travel costs."

Here is a copy of the contract.

In a strange coincidence, the Spokesman Review this week highlighted the bad blood east of the Cascades for efforts to use taxpayer dollars to remodel Husky stadium.

• Huskies' reach for taxes hits Cougar nerve
• Taxes are no fun

Although Husky stadium may need renovations, rather than paying a lobbyist $175 per hour to secure taxpayer funding, why not use some of the UW's $2.7 billion endowment or asking for alumni help?

Some people might be wondering how changes in teacher salaries affect the monthly union dues they must pay.  It works like this:  union officials set the amount of dues and notify school payroll administrators.  Administrators subtract the dues from teachers' take-home pay and transfer it to a designated bank account.  This year union officials set the rate at $78 per teacher per month, a 2.2% increase compared to last year.  This figure includes payments to union officials at the national, state and local level.

Once the strike is over, if officials increase monthly dues at the same 14.1% rate as the pay increase they are requesting from the district, union officials would receive an additional $12,362 a month, or $445,032 more over the life of the three-year contract.  Total teachers' union dues paid over three years would be $3.6 million. 

Bearing signs saying “No Contract? No School!" officials at Bellevue union officials have led teachers on strike, closing classrooms to 16,000 area students.

Part of the union dispute is over teacher pay.  But in Bellevue money is not a problem.  This year taxpayers are generously providing Bellevue school administrators with $164 million, or about $10,000 per student, to educate children.  A typical classroom of 25 students, for example, receives $250,000 in funding.  Obviously, much of this money never makes it to the classroom.

One drain on District resources are mandatory union dues.  The union security clause requires teachers, within 30 days of hire, to join a designated union as a condition of employment. Any teacher who does not agree to monthly deductions faces termination.

The monthly dues transfer is a major item in school district budgets.  For April 2008, Bellevue school officials transferred $111,600 to five union bank accounts.  That number breaks down as follows.

Bellevue Education Association (the teachers’ union) $87,677

International Association of Machinists and Aeros …..      430

International Union of Operating Engineers…………..   4,413

Maintenance Employees Association ………………..      130

Service Employees International Union ……………    18,946

Total monthly dues transferred ……………………$111,596

In the 2006-07 school year, Bellevue officials transferred a total of $933,880 in monthly dues to unions.

Considering the importance of the work society is asking them to do, school teachers should be paid a lot more.  If most education funding actually reached the classroom, Bellevue could pay its teachers on average $100,000 per nine-month academic year, and still have $125,000 per classroom available for all other operating expenses.

Instead, school districts should adopt a system in which principals are allowed to hire teachers and pay much higher salaries.  A commonsense salary policy would end disruptive labor disputes, maintain classroom access for children, attract top talent to teaching and, finally, actually pay school teachers what they deserve.

On Crosscut, David Brewster questioned whether Sound Transit's first phase, which won voter approval in 1996, is one of the "word's biggest boondoggles?" He compares the agency's initial promises to voters with the fact they are now billions of dollars over budget and many years late.

While Sound Transit's troubles are well documented, the philosophy that led to the agency's woes is even more outrageous. Brewster says:

Are you shocked? If so, consider that most of these projects are in
fact wildly popular, even if the public had to be gulled to go along
with building them. It's standard practice to low-ball cost estimates,
in order to get the bond issue passed, and then to add on costs as
politics requires and the public demands more than the bare-bones model.

So basically, the publisher of Crosscut is saying that taxpayers shouldn't be "shocked" when large public works transportation projects run late and over budget. In fact, according to Brewster, voters and taxpayers should somehow expect and appreciate being misled:

Meanwhile, voters confronted with bond issues for such
mighty plans might keep in mind the same rule of thumb that works when
you call an architect to remodel your house: Double the budget and
double the estimated time. And remember, it's usually worth it, if you
somehow get it built.

Ummm, this is not entirely analogous....unlike a homeowner hiring an architect, taxpayers do not have the option to stop the flow of money when things go wrong.

Nevertheless, according to Brewster, deliberately underestimating costs and overestimating revenues to sweeten the appearance of a large public works transportation project is ok and we should be thankful for not being told the truth because the means will always justify the ends....right???

The PI reports ST2 will cost $22.8 billion and be completed by 2023. Applying Brewster's new methodology means that voters should expect ST2 to cost $45.6 billion and not be completed until 2038.

So do you still think moving less than one percent of all trips by the year 2038 is worth $45.6 billion?

Earlier this week I asked spokespeople for both Governor Gregoire and Senator Rossi if they support a 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases and if yes, would they support placing them in the constitution like was done with the rainy day reserve from I-601.

Though I haven't received an official response yet from the candidates, Governor Gregoire was on the Dori Monson show today (KIRO 710) and was asked the same question.

Here was the tail end of their exchange on this issue:

Dori: "Yes or no, do you support the 2/3 legislative majority for tax increases?"

Gregoire: “I think it’s a moot issue because I think it [tax increases] ought to go to a vote of the people.” 

The full interview is worth listening to. Discussion about the budget deficit starts at 12:50 of the interview (audio here). The exchange on the 2/3 requirement for tax increases starts at 21:22 on the audio link.

I'll post the official responses from Governor Gregoire and Senator Rossi once I receive them. 

Citizens’ Guide to
Initiative 985

The Reduce Traffic Congestion
Act of 2008

On the ballot this
November will be Initiative 985 (I‐985), the Reduce Traffic Congestion Act of
2008. The measure is sponsored by Tim Eyman and is an effort to implement some of
the recommendations made in a recent performance audit conducted by the
Washington State Auditor’s Office (SAO).

Key Findings

· I‐985 would not
raise taxes and would generate about $1.7 billion for transportation
infrastructure every ten years.

· I‐985 would
increase the projected statewide budget deficit by about $290 million during the
next two year budget cycle and about $284 million in the 2011‐13 biennium.

· I‐985 would
reduce the state’s reliance on the fuel tax for transportation infrastructure.

· I‐985 would shift
the state’s current policy back toward one that ties public spending to traffic
congestion relief.

· I‐985 would open HOV
lanes during non‐peak hours, which would reduce overall delay, because more
drivers would be able to pass through the system. It may also increase
congestion on sensitive direct access lanes and ramps.

· Opening HOV lanes
during non‐peak hours would also increase travel times for buses and cost
transit agencies higher fuel and labor expenses and the loss of up to $20
million in federal grant money.

· I‐985 would
expand the emergency roadside assistance program and could reduce minor
accident clearance times by nearly 10 percent.

· I‐985 would
synchronize most traffic signals and reduce travel times up to 20 percent on
major arterials and up to 7 percent overall.

· I‐985 would
protect toll revenues in the same way the Washington State Constitution
protects gas tax revenues.

Read
the full Policy Brief online here >>