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.
Improving public education in Washington state requires understanding why so many examples of poor school management hit the newspapers every day, including, just off the top of my head, $500,000 of lost equipment and even a lost piano in Seattle, $44-$77million lost in bond sales, widespread mediocre to abysmal student test results, particularly for the poor and disadvantaged, teacher strikes, shortages in transportation and other funds and surpluses in others.
Yet spending on public schools in Washington continues apace, providing a total of $10,274 per pupil from all local, state and federal sources in 2008-9, more than at any time in the state's history, ranking the state at 30th in the nation in 2005 in per pupil expenditures. If you are interested in finding out the exact number of dollars per student your school district receives from all sources, go to this link, and click on School District Expenditures, either the Interactive or Excel spreadsheet.
Even though business recognized over a quarter century ago that delivering excellence requires decentralizing control to the local manager, schools continue to be managed by top-down, centralized, autocratic bureaucracies. Principals in Washington State control less than 5% of their school budgets and central bureaucracies decide, based on staffing ratios, which staff each school receives.
Professor Ouchi's new book, The Secret of Total Student Load, The Revolutionary Discovery that Raises School Performance, explains that this centralized system of running our schools has been in place since the 1930's, and has not changed to meet the challenges of the current time, even though school districts on average have fifteen as many students as their predecessors had 75 years ago. (See page 4 of The Secret of Total Student Load.)
Washington State needs to get with the program of real change. As Professor Ouchi puts it, a quiet revolution is under way in eight decentralized districts, New York, Chicago, Boston, Oakland, San Francisco, St. Paul, Houston and other districts across the country. Here, in his own words:
That revolution allows each school in some districts the power to make more and more of its own budgetary, personnel, and instructional decisions and permits families to decide which public school their children will attend. Power is being shifted from central office staffs to families, principals, and teachers, and the results so far show that students are doing better, parents and teachers are more satisfied, and school districts may never be the same.
Providing more funding to this broken, dysfunctional system will simply deliver the same mediocre to poor results, at a higher cost to taxpayers and, even worse, to the students who are not being educated sufficiently to give them a life of success in college or the workplace.
Remember, over 30% of Washington's students fail to graduate from high school. Of those who make it to community or technical school, 52% must take remedial courses in English, math or writing. Of those who make it to a 4 year university or community college, 37% must take remedial courses. Then huge numbers of these student drop out from college.
Washington State ranks 37th in the nation in graduation rates. This will not change until we restructure the management of public schools in Washington State.
Just a few hours ago, a King County judge declared that the Kent teachers' strike is illegal under Washington law and that teachers must return to the classroom next week. What happens next is anyone's guess.
This issue of class sizes is very intriguing, especially since union leaders declare it is still an issue. What actual class sizes are in Kent needs to be investigated.
As laid out in my previous post, financial reporting forms filed by the Kent School District show that Kent employs 1238 elementary and secondary school teachers. These forms show that Kent educates 25,499 students. (This link takes you to the Kent Apportionment and F-195 Budget Overview reports, which provide these numbers. )
A simple long-division calculation, 25,499 divided by 1238, reveals that taxpayers are providing sufficient resources for Kent teachers to have class sizes of no more than 20-21 students.
Other reporters are using the figure of 1700 for classroom teachers in Kent, which significantly overstates the number of classroom teachers, as that figure includes other non-classroom staff who must have a certificate to work, i.e. counselors, librarians, psychologists, and other such staff. If all of these employees were reassigned to classroom duty, another simple long-division calculation, dividing 25,499 by 1700, reveals that Kent teachers could have class sizes of 15.
If class sizes are unreasonably large, as contended by some Kent teachers, then they have a point, but it is not that taxpayers are failing to provide sufficient resources. Taxpayers are providing ample resources to Washington's schools, but less than 59 cents of every dollar actually reaches the classroom.
In a topsy-turvy economy like this, it seems for every glimmer of hope there's an ugly reminder of our current status. While the summer unemployment rate stabilized (at least for the time being) at 9.4% nationally and 9.1% for our state, the Labor Department today released data showing that the number of people filing for unemployment benefits climbed over the past week. Analysts expected about 564,000 initial unemployment claims but 570,000 ended up doing so.
Some interesting data also shows that productivity rose sharply during the second quarter, while labor costs fell. This is good because higher productivity and lower costs will help lead towards profit!
, which in turn leads to economic growth as businesses ramp back up.
Of course, let's hope this happens otherwise there won't be any way to pay for some of the federal government's audacious plans. As this article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland points out, the federal budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is already at a 60+ year high, around 11.2%, and both the OMB and CBO expect it to remain at around 4% for the next decade.
What does all this data mean? We're certainly not anywhere to even being close to out of the woods.
It appears teachers in Kent believe the No Strike provision, Article III, Section 10, of their expiring contract no longer applies. This is not the case. Washington law says the old contract remains in effect until a new one is negotiated.
RCW 41.56.123 provides as follows: After the termination date of a collective bargaining agreement, all of the terms and conditions specified in the collective bargaining agreement shall remain in effect until the effective date of a subsequent agreement, not to exceed one year from the termination date stated in the agreement. Thereafter, the employer may unilaterally implment according to law.
State law says teacher strikes are illegal. On top of that, union leaders in Kent went against thier own contract when they led members out on strike.
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:
A coalition of education activists and union officials is suing the people of Washington, claiming taxpayers are not fulfilling the constitutional paramount duty to provide “ample” funding for public schools.
An in-depth study by the Washington Policy Center finds the lawsuit’s claim is not supported by research data. The main finding of “An Overview of Public Schools Funding in Washington” is that by any reasonable measure Washington taxpayers are providing ample funding for public schools.
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.
Our research shows that not only is the teacher strike announced by union leaders in Kent illegal under state law, but the decision to strike also violates Article III, Section 10 of the existing teacher contract, the one union officials agreed to just a few years ago.
This finding raises some important policy questions. Is a labor strike the best way to educate children in Kent? What lesson do kids learn when they see grown-ups turning to conflict instead of consensus to resolve their disagreements? And finally, what is the point of negotiating a new contract when one party (in this case the union officials) does not follow the provisions of the current contract?”
The No Strike section of the contract is as follows:
ARTICLE III - ASSOCIATION & BOARD RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES Section 10 - NO STRIKE - NO LOCKOUT There shall not be authorized any strike, slow down, or any other stoppage of work by the Association, regardless of whether an unfair labor practice is alleged. Should a strike, slow down or stoppage by the Association members occur, the Association shall immediately instruct its members to return to work. If the teachers do not resume work as required by the Agreement immediately upon being so instructed, they shall be subject to discipline, including discharge.
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.
Word from CNET today is that the U.S. Senate is considering a bill which would effectively hand over the Internet to the control of the President during a cybersecurity emergency. Senate Bill 773 directs the Office of Personal Management to development and implement a "Cybersecurity Responsibilities and Authority" plan within 6 months of passage.
The Kent School District provides a glimpse into the broken governance and management structure of Washington's public school system. Led by their union leadership, teachers have voted to engage in an illegal strike, claiming that, in this time of serious economic distress and 10% unemployment, they are entitled to additional salary increases and reductions to class size.
Teachers rightfully resent the "one-size-fits-all" approach to school management and improving teaching, pointing out that a high school chemistry teacher may be responsible for 150 students one year and 70 students the next year (see yesterday's Seattle Times article), and that countless meetings required by the district are not productive.
Why aren't teachers demanding a change to this broken model for running our schools? One would think that teachers would demand that decisions over running schools be taken away from centralized bureaucracies and mandates from Olympia, and instead placed in the hands of the principal and his school leadership team. Only when management is truly localized will teachers be treated as individuals and respected and rewarded for the important work that they do. This reform has dramatically improved conditions for teachers (by reducing total student load) and raised student performance in New York City, Baltimore, San Francisco, Houston, pilot schools in Boston, Chicago and Washington D.C.
Instead, union leaders cling to outmoded and illegal practices like teachers strikes to achieve their own short-sighted goals. Union response to suggestions that teachers and students would benefit from putting the principal in charge of his school budget and staff is that principals are subjective and can't be trusted to be fair to teachers. This argument is entirely unpersuasive, as due process and grievance procedures against those principals who abuse their position would be put in place to protect teachers. Faceless central school bureaucracies are far more likely to treat teachers arbitrarily and capriciously than a principal who is well acquainted with the challenges facing each teacher and knows the strengths and weaknesses of each teacher.
It is the mantra of the environmental left that they "follow the science." Frequently, however, repeating that claim substitutes for actually adhering to scientific rigor.
The latest example comes today in the Seattle Times, where State Senator Phil Rockefeller claims that "Quite literally, greenhouse-gas emissions threaten to render our planet unlivable." This is simply not true by any reasonable standard.
The body most often cited as the basis for the "scientific consensus," the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that such a threat is virtually nonexistent. The most likely scenario under a "business as usual" approach to carbon emissions is an increase of 1 to 3 degrees C (1.8 to 5.4 degrees F). It should be noted that if we apply current temperature trends, the projections are at the lowest end of that range. Saying that such increases would render the planet "unlivable" is hyperbole to the extreme.
The public should be dubious of policies that rely on unscientific hyperbole for justification.
In an interview with Kaiser Health News yesterday, Senator Charles Grassley expressed concern that health reform legislation would not pass out of the Senate Finance Committee when members reconvene after the August recess. The Iowa senator is the ranking Republican in the Senate Finance Committee, the only committee that has yet to pass health care legislation on to its respective floor.
Senator Grassley has seen a real shift in voter sentiment in just the past month. Constituents at his town hall meetings have been extremely vocal about the costs and the consequences of the proposed legislation. They do not want another trillion dollar government program and are worried about loosing the amount and quality of their own health care.
All three House committees overseeing health care legislation, as well as the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, have passed out bills with votes strictly along party lines. The sole remaining committee is Senate Finance. Without bipartisan support in this committee, health care reform will either die, or will be pushed by Democrats only. It would be monumental to have major legislation like health care reform passed without bipartisan support.