how bleak is it?

Last night's Legislative Forum had a theme: the future is bleak.

How bleak?

Check out The Olympian's article about Gregoire's decision to not call a special session.

She said the gap is huge, and puts unprotected programs at serious risk of cuts – including any discretionary programs fully funded by state dollars. Examples include the Basic Health Plan, which after budget cuts this year is projected to give subsidized health insurance to about 65,000 low-income working adults.

Another program facing threats of cuts is the General Assistance Unemployable program that gives cash stipends of about $339 a month and health care to people who are disabled or in some way unable to work. That program has been retooled into a managed-care health-delivery system; however, that is supposed to save $40 million in the next 18 months, unless it is scrapped.

Financial aid to college students is also at serious risk.

All that echoes exactly what our local legislators said yesterday. It's going to be a painful 2010. With Brendan Williams being the only one keen to discuss raising taxes, and with 2010 being an election year, you can pretty much count on steep cuts to the existing budget.

liveblogging the WEA Chinook Legislative Forum

4:56 p.m.
Why am I at the WEA Chinook Legislative Forum?
a. To hear legislators talk about the issues.
b. To grab my local representatives by the collective earlobes.
c. To avoid the deluge outside.
d. All of the above.

5:34
Oh. I guess it was snacks and chit-chat until 5:30. Guess I could've rolled in a half hour later. Gary Gerst emcees, asking folks to "keep it rolling."

5:37
In attendance: Brendan Williams (22nd), Sam Hunt (22nd), and Kathy Haigh (35th). Gary Alexander is rumored to be on the way. (And he showed up.)

5:40
A question: what should we expect in the upcoming session?

Kathy Haigh: "I think it's going to be short." "Another $2 billion down, and no significant funding coming from the feds.... It's going to be significant cuts.... We should all be keeping a close eye on [the] health care issue." If the feds stepped in to fund our "Apple" health care for kids, that'd help. ECAP is the "absolute wrong place" to cut from. I-728, 732 are (still) at risk. Levy equalization funds won't be touched. Higher Ed--expect another tuition increase, even letting schools set their own tuition rates.

Brendan Williams: "At the risk of sounding like a liberal Democrat..." The legislature could have raised taxes, but "the votes were bought to keep that from occurring." "I did not vote for [728 and 732] to be suspended." Cutting programs from K-12 education is "the pricetag for political careerism." "It's time to meaningfully distinguish ourselves, with all due respect, from the opposition."

Gary Alexander: "Unlike my friend to the left, I think our first challenge is to see what we can do to reduce the budget. Government will not pull us out of the recession." "We can't continue to cut around the edges... We have to go back and talk about what our priorities are: public health, public safety, and public education.... This may mean the elimination of entire services... that can be replaced by the private sector." "We have to basically produce results that will be sustainable on a long-term basis." I'm not going to vote for a policy that doesn't have any funding."

Sam Hunt: For years this state has kept the crazy old aunt in the closet... our broken tax system.... We have a "crazy tax system." "The sales go down and the caseloads go up every damn time you look at it... We've cut all the edges, we've cut all the low-hanging fruit." "I have some hope that the feds will help with Title I, and health care."

5:57
Question for Gary Alexander: Where do we cut?
Things that aren't basic public health, safety, or education: Public health care assistance that isn't matched by federal dollars. Privatize state liquor control board, state printing operations. (Question: Is that enough to find $2 billion? Answer: I don't know.)

6:04
Loopholes are discussed. Sam Hunt notes that it was the Lieutenant Governor's move to declare closing a loophole a "tax increase" that shut down debate at the outset. Kathy Haigh notes that we can't necessarily bank on a tax increase that won't take effect until after passing a plebiscite next November.

6:07
What about the recommendation to close the Maple Lane juvenile school?

Sam Hunt: It was unfair to put the option, Do we close Green Hill or Maple Lane? "I was very happy to see that the consultants' study recommended closing neither one; there was no cost savings to closing either one."

There's some further crosstalk on this issue, but I'm not an expert in these matters.

6:14
What's going to happen to the last remaining LID day?

Weeeeelllllll.....

6:16
David Johnston, OEA, discusses HB 2261, which broadened the definition of basic education--but without any attached funding. (It's the bill Alexander referred to earlier, having voted against it because of its precipitous ratio of expectations to appropriations.) Now that we're "living under it," what will the Legislature do to fund it--or will they repeal it?

Kathy Haigh: if we fund it, it has to be prioritized. Funding will come out of GAU and healthcare for those in poverty, some of the places in the budget where we have the "least accountability."

Brendan Williams: I doubt it'll be funded by its target date, 2018. "I'll bet your PAC $500" that it won't.

6:28
There's a discussion about Physical Education and obesity. I'm sitting in a chair clickety-clacking at a keyboard, so I'm not going to opine, simply out of fear of hypocrisy.

6:29
Kathy Haigh: "Everybody should do the Thriller dance at 8:05."

6:34
Sam Hunt talks about the "Core 24" provision, another unfunded mandate. Teachers aren't thrilled by it. He then answers a question about income tax--talking about a potentially more equitable tax system, a chance to reform a structure that hasn't been seriously debated since Booth Gardner was in office.

7:00
A few questions and comments came up after that, but my laptop battery decided it was done.

I may post some concluding thoughts in a while. That is, if the gale outside hasn't made mincemeat of the grid.

a little love for the WASL

This morning's Seattle Times offers an article on a recent survey of Washington teachers regarding the soon-to-be-obsolete WASL. An unfortunately small, probably unrepresentative sample reports that, yes, there are some good things about having a statewide standardized test that values critical thinking.

Teachers echoed many of the same old criticisms of the WASL — it's too long, the results are confusing and don't come back in time — but they also credited the WASL with improving students' writing and reasoning skills.

They pointed favorably to its "extended response" questions, which are to be eliminated from new exams favored by Randy Dorn, the new state superintendent of public instruction who campaigned to replace the WASL.

The new tests, to be introduced next spring, will continue to have some short-answer questions but will be largely multiple-choice.

That will be true for the state exams given to 10th-graders and those for students in third though eighth grades. The only exception will be the writing section, where students will still be judged on the quality of short essays.

Researchers found that most of the teachers they surveyed wanted to improve, rather than replace, the WASL. The difference is tough to discern. At some point, we enter into Ship of Theseus territory.

And what about the upcoming non-WASL?

[Superintendent Randy] Dorn is working to offer the test online; math sections will be updated; and the superintendent's office is working on classroom tests that would allow teachers to diagnose what help students need.

Missing: by 2014, math tests will be end-of-course exams directly linked to instruction in various subjects, since not all students take the same math sequence. (The way things have gone, who knows what'll be required by then, anyway.)

The key change is the new, technologically-mediated approach to the upcoming non-WASL's diagnostic capabilities. If the test, as its proponents claim, validly points out deficiencies in instruction, then that information needs to be in schools' and teachers' hands within days, not months. (And, as I argue elsewhere, a better diagnostic test might not even need to be linked to graduation to be effective.)

Last, if we can save at least ten of the sixteen hours currently spent administering the 10th-grade WASL, I'll see that as a win.

WASL expenses set to rise

A week before March madness approaches again, a fun story: some of those classic WASL questions have to go.

The state superintendent's office estimates that the cost of administering the Washington Assessment of Student Learning could jump by $15 million to $25 million in 2009.

That's on top of the $22 million originally budgeted.

The increase is being driven mainly by a higher demand for testing because of the federal No Child Left Behind education law, said Joe Willhoft, an assistant state superintendent of public instruction in Olympia.

Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, and chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, said paying $47 million for one year of testing is not an option.

Instead, state leaders are pressing for changes they say would shave millions off the cost and cut the amount of time spent testing without diminishing the accuracy of the WASL.

The savings would come primarily from chopping the number of open-ended, thought-provoking questions and delaying some extra features. And even then, the tests would still cost an extra $15 million or so.

The WASL takes eight days, and uses four booklets (reading, writing, math, and science). Even at today's lower rates, it costs the state roughly $70 per student to assess the WASL, assuming that student takes all four exams. Meanwhile, the SAT costs a student $43, while the PSAT costs $12. Is either any less valid than a proposed "mini-WASL?" Maybe it really is time to exorcise our Concorde effect demons and scrap the WASL.

Update 3/5: KOMO has more, noting that now, a bill to slice the WASL has passed the House. Meanwhile, the Senate wants to bring back end-of-course exams... Not while Gregoire's in office, methinks.

WEA Chinook legislative forum liveblog

An impressionistic account of the WEA Chinook legislative forum on January 8th, 2008 in Tumwater, Washington. All rights reserved.

5:15 p.m.
Arrived at headquarters. Walked through the Burger King-imbued mist to the forum. Snacked.

5:25
"I know our lobbyist checks out your blog from time to time," said one of our union reps.

"It must be pretty good, then," said the fellow who was trying to get me on the wireless network. One reboot later, I was good to go. And here I am, liveblogging the legislative forum.

5:35 p.m.
Teachers, EAs, retirees, and hangers-on are still milling about the cheese tray. The muckety-mucks aren't here yet. I'm guessing that Karen Fraser and Brendan Williams will be fashionably late, that Sam Hunt will arrive first, that Gary Alexander will smile until his cheeks split, and that Tim Sheldon will join the Republican party before coming.

5:36 p.m.
Am I the only person who confuses Sam Hunt and Gary Alexander?

5:41
Sam is taller.

5:51
Gary Alexander (20th District) and Sam Hunt (22nd District) take the stage first. Karen Fraser's running late, visiting flooded areas, says WEA's Kathie Axtell. Alexander gets to talk first. "Good--let me eat, and you talk," says Hunt.

5:55
Alexander talks about his experience, committee assignments. A new gig: the Gambling Committee. "I'll find out what my responsibilities are tomorrow," he says. "Wanna bet?" Hunt quips, and then launches into his own résumé and educational bona fides.

5:56
Fraser (22nd District) appears, introduces self, long list of political positions. "I have managed to lead a real life in spite of all that."

Axtell thanks the legislators for coming, near the start of the short session, and introduces WEA prez Mary Lindquist. Axtell's first question: what are the "hot spots" in the upcoming session?

Alexander: The flood. He's happy with the Congressional, legislative, and gubernatorial responses so far, but wants to ensure that the work keeps moving forward. Sees a need for budgetary restraint--worries that we're going to spend ourselves into a deficit if we don't pare down in this "supplemental budget year." Interested in seeing what educational and health care task forces will come up with.

Hunt: The flood. Transportation--ferries, viaduct, 520 Bridge, Seattle congestion. Sums up the problem of securing funding for new projects or fixes: "If it doesn't fall down, you're not getting any money." Worries about state education revenue--according to recent forecasts, growth may slow in 2009-2010 to 3%. "Where we're going on WASL, I don't know." Going to try to focus on real "emergency" needs. "We have enough dilemmas to last us at least 60 days."

Fraser: The budget. "If there's anything we can do smarter, we should do it." Says the capital budget is "oversubscribed," but is no public demand for revenue increase (what you might call, say, "taxes"). Flood. K-12 construction competes with prisons. "Always engage on prison and sentencing discussions, because it affects you." I-970 makes some budget decisions especially difficult.

Hunt jumps in to point out that the fastest-growing cost is in health care, and that environmental issues are also major priorities this year.

6:16
Question / comment time begins.

Glen Hunter, a math teacher at WF West, talks about the difference between 1973 and now. Back then, he was 1 out of 150 applicants for a math job. This year, the school posted a math job that got two applicants. How do we get more, better qualified math and science teachers?

Alexander blames school districts for taking additional funding for math and science and "spreading it around" to other positions. Sees "nothing wrong" with providing incentives for filling difficult positions.

Hunt disagrees, saying that our salaries lag behind other neighboring states, and that the legislature has failed to step up. "The ceiling becomes the floor," he says, but I'm pretty sure he means the opposite.

6:23
Another commentator talks about the substitute shortage, too. In Australia, she says, subs are put on per diem pay, which keeps their numbers up. Another chimes in: I shoudln't have to find the principal.

Samantha Chandler, Olympia, a 6th-year teacher, talks about the debt new teachers can take with them into their early years in the classroom. (Read the NEA article here.) Her idea for cutting back: how about reducing sentences for nonviolent drug offenders? Also, "Development should pay for development," instead of providing loopholes for companies like Cabela's.

Fraser notes that the legislature has been very cautious about the drug issue, because they might appear "soft on crime." She's disappointed by the deal Cabela's got.

Hunt adds on, saying that the legislature's habit of increasing crimes to felonies adds costs. Thinks that we're "looking at that much more carefully" now.

6:32
Betty Hauser, North Thurston para-eduator, asks about the distinction between cost-of-living increases for teachers, and similar increases for EAs. The former went straight to the individuals, while the latter was trickled down to districts--and sometimes stopped there. What gives?

Alexander bites first, saying that he's frustrated that districts have ignored the intent to have individuals compensated directly--and that this is the first time he's heard about it. (This surprises Axtell.) Furthermore, Alexander says the GOP caucus would support having a separate education budget first. Sees a lack of funding for special needs as well. Hunt appends here, noting that other agencies have ignore legislative directives, treating them as mere "guidelines." Fraser basically agrees. Alexander says that redistributing appropriations "goes beyond local school district authority."

6:40
Hunt talks about one of the major weirdnesses in our system: teachers funded by the state get a 3% raise... and "levy teachers" don't. To keep everything equitable, districts are forced to make up the difference.

6:41
Rebecca Angus: What about the COLA that we should've got, but didn't?

Alexander: "I don't think it'll be this session." He notes that it's usually more costly to play "catch-up" than to just fund our obligations in the first place. It's "sexier" to build new schools than to fix old ones, Hunt adds.

6:44
Jenny Morgan, CHS counselor: What about class size?

Fraser says to keep fighting for expansions beyond K-3. Hunt says we'll get smaller classes "When we get tax reform, and a new funding formula for basic education." Alexander believes that the issue is still debatable and is open to arguments on either side, but sees success in earlier years. Wants K-3 money to go there, and not somewhere else. Hunt thinks "295 school districts is at least 150 too many."

Angus presses Hunt on the issue of reform: when will this happen? Hunt says that public pressure isn't out there, at least not yet.

6:50, one hour in
A commentator named Kathy Tarabolski (sp) from North Thurston asks about the WASL and special needs. What do we do with the students who aren't meeting standards on our state's test, when it seems to be such a poor measure of certain students' abilities?

Hunt questions the questioner: as a teacher, what would you do?

Another teacher talks about the European style, separate "avenues" for those who aren't supposed to be "scholars."

Alexander agrees, saying we need an earlier form of vocational tracking in schools.

Axtell explains that we lost the WAAS-DAW (the WASL alternative) when it was axed by the federal government. Tarabolski seconds this.

Fraser says that we should re-examine how much time, effort, and money is going into


7:00
Carmel Berg, White Pass: as a citizen and teacher, how can I get involved to make changes? Did we fail somehow when the WASL first came about?

Fraser: I don't think we anticipated the outcome. The entire educational establishment was for the WASL when it was originally conceived.

Hunt: "The WASL became the canary that ate the cat." HB 1209, the WASL bill, included a list of goals that were meant to be fulfilled concurrently, but weren't.

Betty Hauser speaks again: the test itself isn't the real problem, it's what we do with the test.

7:04
Mike, a math teacher, talks about how "wrong-headed" the WASL has been since the beginning. And some other things. His major point: learn about other systems. While he's filibustering, I check out the original WASL bill [pdf]. Those were heady days.

Other teachers talk about how the federal government, especially through NCLB. Will we take a stand against NCLB as a state?

Hunt encourages teachers to start pressuring their legislators en masse. Also, "I'd like to see this reversed" next year, so legislators can listen to a teacher panel. Be careful what you wish for, Representative...

7:22
I finally ask my question. No one committed yet; Hunt "hasn't met" Rich Semler, and has no current endorsement in the upcoming. "That's a good question for all of you," he says. "We're on it," Axtell responds. Later, she talks about how the WEA went out searching for a fresh face for OSPI, but couldn't find anyone. Is Semler going to cut it? Will someone else step up? Or is Bergeson a lock?

7:30
And we're done. I'll wrap up in a little while, once I've had time to reflect and check a few quotes on my voice recorder.

go ahead, ask

Tomorrow, I'll spend an evening listening to Gary Alexander, Brendan Williams, Sam Hunt, Karen Fraser, and Tim Sheldon at a union-sponsored legislative forum in Tumwater. WEA prez Mary Lindquist might make an appearance, too.

If I get the chance, I have one question for the folks in charge.

Terry Bergeson is up for reelection. Would you support a change in leadership at OSPI?

If you have some music you'd like a state muckety-muck to face, suggest a question in the comments. I'll report back later.

Update: As is sometimes my custom, I'm liveblogging the event over at 5/17.

"Take the Lead" vs. the race to the bottom

Via the good doctor, some depressing news:

Newly released national education statistics show Washington's average teacher salaries have dropped even further behind the national average and remain dead last among West Coast states. The average Washington teacher earns $12,000 less than the West Coast average.

Washington's class sizes are ranked 46th in the nation.

A separate report from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy(page 15) shows that Washington now ranks 45th in the nation in per-pupil spending, which indicates a further slide in support for Washington's public school students.

Or is it? What I said about relative rankings a year ago still holds true:

First, can we forever banish 50-state ranking statistics, throw them in the burn barrel where they belong? Someone has to be ranked fiftieth, unless all states spend the same amount, dollar-for-dollar, which will never happen. Imagine if every state spent upwards of $15,000 per student per year. Would the citizens of Mississippi really care if they ranked last at that point? Furthermore, rankings that don't factor in cost-of-living adjustments are worse than useless. Let's talk about benchmarks, baselines. Relative assessments are essentially meaningless.

I'm all for improving compensation--I want to attract more, better teachers--but not in favor of misleading or dubious rankings to help us get there. Show me the absolute numbers, give me the ideal reference point, and let's set a goal and get it done.

funding lawsuit clears next major hurdle

Big news out of King County Superior Court:

Judge Michael Heavey wrote in an opinion attached to his order granting summary judgment that uneven distribution of state money to school districts violates the state constitution because it is not general and uniform, and violates the equal-protection rights of Federal Way teachers, students and taxpayers.

The judge said he expects the case to be appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. The state has 30 days to file an appeal. A call to the state attorney general's office seeking comment was not immediately returned.

The school district's lawsuit was filed in November 2006 against the state, the governor, the superintendent of public instruction and other officials.

Heavey, a former state legislator, said he believes lawmakers had been making progress toward a more equitable distribution of school money, but there is still some work to do. For example, most school districts get $32,746 from the state per teacher, although a few get as much as $4,000 more.

The state distributes school money based on the number of students in each district. Under a formula, the money is split among teachers, administrators and other staff, with employees paid within a range for each category.

"Because of the 'ranges,' there are 258 different funding levels for the state's 296 school districts," Heavey wrote.

He called the formula "arbitrary and wholly irrelevant" and said it was left over from an old system.

This is a tentative but satisfying victory for not just the WEA,who has pressed the suit forward, but for all Washington educators. If the lawsuit is appealed to the Supreme Court, which seems all but certain, and, bigger if, it succeeds, it becomes a matter of legislative remedy. That'll be interesting.

Update: In my sleep-deprived mind, I connected this lawsuit with the other state funding lawsuit, which is still in the works.

grading the WEA's grading

I've been out of action for the past week, traveling to Spain to visit my wife, who's studying there. That doesn't mean that other quality bloggers have been resting their mice, though. Yesterday Ryan tackled the WEA's legislative report card. A sample:

Pensions/Gainsharing: D

Apparently we don’t believe in Fs, because if any one area deserved it this is the one. Lisa Brown might be an economist, but she’s certainly no friend of anyone who wants to retire from teaching.

And let’s be blunt—the WEA gets an F here, too. We went into the session trumpeting a true rule of 85; we’ve come out with the retirement age being lowered to 62 and not much else. New employees can now choose between TRS 2 and TRS 3, but those of us who didn’t get to choose and were placed in TRS3 automatically get nothing....

As they say, read the whole thing--and as for me, I'll be back in full blogging swing once I finish some grading of my own. Two seven-hour trans-Atlantic flights and two three-hour train trips through the south of Spain just weren't enough.

controlling the message

Ryan laments:

1) Those who fought the battles of the '70s and '80s know how hard the profession had to fight to get collective bargaining and earn the gains we have. Many new teachers don't have that background--the association has always been there and always been powerful, to them--and as a result there's not the fire that you see from some of the experienced folks.

2) A side effect is that the WEA narrative becomes passe, because it's the only one they know. If a group like the EFF comes along and presents a good case, visually appealing, accessible through the technology that the new teachers use....we're setting ourselves up for a fall.

The WEA has the resources. They have the personality. During a legislative session like the one we just had I think it's criminal they don't do something like a weekly podcast to get the message out. Give us interviews with our elected WEA exec board, where they talk about the union and why we're still vital. Bring in the experts on ProCert, National Board, retirement, and all the other things that really matter.

Where is the voice of the WEA?

The WEA has people like Brooke Mattox and Rich Wood who have ramped up the union's web presence--but mostly for members, not for the general public. Rich in particular is hip to the new media, and his sentiments are shared by some in leadership, but Ryan is right: we're second-rate. Sure, bloggers like Ryan are beating the drum daily, and the "Take the Lead" concept is a step toward progress, but until the WEA starts aggregating blogs, starts getting bloggers signed on, and seriously develops an instant response team, it's going to keep getting pantsed by the more prolific.

Washington Learns rec's pass, as does agency shop fees revision

A flurry of education bills passed on Friday.

"We should be proud of the work we have done tonight. We have really made some hallmark moves to improve education in our schools," said Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, chairwoman of the Senate's Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee, on the Senate floor.

(The math bill was included.)

The pre-emptive agency shop fee bill passed as well.

The measure passed Friday night deals with co-mingling of funds, and the measure says that that when labor organizations are making political campaign contributions, the contribution is not considered to be using agency shop fees when the organization's general treasury has enough money to cover the contributions from other revenue sources.

So by clarifying the statute, the unions would be able to spend money on political action and not have to show that it isn't using agency shop fees.

McDermott said that because union dues and "agency fees" from nonmembers are co-mingled, there's no way to see which is agency shop fees and which is union dues, and that the measure just clarifies that the money can only be spent on political action once nonmembers have been refunded the money after their dollars go to collective bargaining.

"Unions have to account for this and refund the difference," he said. "There is no way for the unions to clearly account for how to do that. The legislation before us provides clarity."

My take on this legislation is here.

Now they're all in Gregoire's court.

the briefest summary of all

Lobby Day in three sentences:

A squad of WEA members from the Olympia area visited with their local legislators on Presidents' Day. They advocated for smaller class sizes, all-day kindergarten and improved compensation. "I'm interested in learning more and getting more involved," said Cindy Roaf, president of the Shelton ESP.

Lobby Day in one word: fun.

corruption in every crevice: or, how to make a trial lawyer part with cash without even flinching

SVC Alumnus thinks a conspiracy is afoot.

I find very, atrociously [sic] concerning the donations, the bills and the timing. Put them all together and you've got a bona fide bad hacker trying to hack the source code of our legal system.

The charge is that the WEA is buying off the sponsors of pro-WEA legislation. The evidence: campaign contributions over the last six years. Five representatives, $15,075 over four election cycles.

Conspiracy!

Or not.

Imagine that the Democrats were hosting a crab feed, and everyone there got violently sick. In would rush Doctor Insta-Diagnosis, grabbing the first four victims and asking them if they ate crab legs. If they said "yes," Dr. I-D would declare the crab meat tainted.

Only a later investigation would discover the real culprit: potato salad.

If you're a real doctor, a real scientist, a real detective, you have to isolate, compare, eliminate all potential confounding variables. You can't just put the numbers up and point at them, especially if you want "comprehensive and unbiased facts."

Look at Joe McDermott's funding in the last election, for example. The $1400 from the WEA looks like a lot, until you compare it to the SEIU's $2100 and the Teamsters' $2075. The WEA's contribution is a paltry 2.35% of McDermott's cash infusion. Conspiracy!

(Of course, some folks think all unions are in a gigantic conspiracy, a band of brothers, and this is just more evidence. I invite them to sit in on a Lobby Day sometime, when we're all scrapping over scraps--just like brothers. And hey, SVC: for the real scoop, investigate the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. What do they have to hide?)

Or, look at the WEA's total contributions in 2006. Almost two hundred entries. Like I've said, that's a lot of candidates and concerns. If that's corruption, it's pretty darn transparent.

It doesn't take much effort to drum up a conspiracy charge. Let's look at Timm Ormsby, who took $700 from "Western Washington Trial Lawyers for Victims Rights." He's also primary sponsor on a bill to revise "the requirements for, and recoveries under, a wrongful injury or death cause of action." Coincidence, or conspiracy? Wait a minute--who else is sponsoring the bill?

Larry Haler (R): clean.
Pedersen (D): clean.
Wood (D): clean.
VanDeWege (D): dirty.
Tom Campbell (R): dirty. Not even Republicans are immune.
Flannigan (D): dirty.
Kessler (D): dirty.
Williams (D): dirty.
Lantz (D): dirty.

In just 2006, Western Washington Trial Lawyers for Victims Rights spent at least $7,000--perhaps to pass HB 1873? Why "perhaps?" Conspiracy!

In fact, let's look closer. HB 1873 [pdf] widens the scope of legal victimhood in wrongful death or injury cases, and broadens the definition of personal injury, including

any noneconomic damages personal to the decedent including, but not limited to, damages for the decedent's pain and suffering, anxiety, emotional distress, loss of life itself, loss of enjoyment of life, shortened life expectancy, or humiliation, in such amounts as determined by a jury to be just under all the circumstances of the case.

The act wouldn't be just remedial, but retroactive. More money for victims, and more fees for attorneys.

We all know who the real beneficiaries will be, though. That's right: bloggers, flush with newfound celebrity for exposing the rotten apple core of Washington state politics.

In all seriousness, it truly stinks that so much money flows into campaigns, that there are strings attached to everything. Money talks, and everyone's willing to listen. Interest groups try to game the system.

The bright side: the PDC makes it easy to "follow the money." If you want to prove a legislator is corrupt, though, you have to give better evidence than a table of context-free dollar amounts.




Sidebar: Timm Ormsby also took $675 from the Washington Soft Drink Association. He's sponsoring a bill to require everyday exercise opportunities in school. Why ban soda when you can just mandate exercise instead, and continue to let the fat cats sell fat juice? Conspiracy!

Sidebar II: Speaking of beverages, I thought it strange that the Washington Beer and Wine Wholesalers were jumping in to contribute this year, until I saw a bill on Ormsby's list: HB 2076, which would allow a few establishments to "trial run" wine and beer tastings. Our sponsors, and their WBWW payola:

Conway: dirty for $2075 in 2006. (1375 in 2004.)
Williams: dirty for $350.
Condotta: dirty for $2075. ($1025 in 2004.)
Newhouse: dirty for $700.
Ormsby: clean.

Conspiracy!

Lobby Day visits with Karen Fraser, Gary Alexander, and Kathy Haigh

On a drizzly Monday, several WEA members joined up to lobby area legislators, including Karen Fraser, Gary Alexander, and Kathy Haigh. What follows is a summary of the various Lobby Day conversations regarding WEA priorities. Not available: Brendan Williams and Sam Hunt. Not included: the conversations I wasn't a party to.

Sen. Karen Fraser, Democrat, 22nd Dist. (info)
The state wants more money. Where to get it? I know, says Chris Gregoire: public employees' pensions. Eliminating gainsharing, a practice where state workers receive additional benefits when state investments earn above a set interest point, would raise revenue for a state strapped for cash hungry for new outlays. Fraser is distressed that Gregoire and high-ranking legislators are trying to eviscerate the program. Her bill, a concession, would preserve gainsharing for teachers hired before July 1, 2007. After that, nothing.

(Want the in-depth impacts? Read the fiscal note. We're talking hundreds of millions of broken promises dollars--and this is just the compromise.)

Fraser said that gainsharing is "going down to the wire." Pressure from public employees might be the main obstacle to its elimination.


Rep. Gary Alexander, Republican, 20th Dist. (info)
Representative Alexander was glad to talk to us about compensation, and was sure to mention the issues he thinks get passed by in the ongoing conversation about ed reform: special needs and transportation. (He didn't go into much detail about the latter.) Alexander is against one-size-fits-all education, telling us how much he'd like to see stronger vocational education, but, paradoxically, not wanting to give a high school diploma to anyone who can't pass the WASL. Several times he mentioned how some students just aren't served by the current model, and yet he never acknowledged the contradiction in his support for the dubious exit exam.

When asked about gainsharing, Alexander was quick to mention HB 2116, a different sort of compromise. Right now, gainsharing kicks in when pension investments top a 10% rate of return. Under Alexander's proposal, the "trigger" would be raised to 14%, reducing the state's odds of liability by almost two thirds. (A 14% rate of return is 64% less likely. Read the whole fiscal note if you dare. Alexander noted that the legality of the proposition--having different gainsharing options for old and new hires--is under investigation.) I asked Alexander what would replace gainsharing as a recruiting tool if it were done away with. He didn't really have an answer.

One bill Alexander is sponsoring would allow students who pass the WASL to skip the "intermediate" step of their licensing [pdf], the time when they can drive only during limited hours and without young passengers. Another secondarily sponsored by Alexander would force the legislature to determine proper education funding before passing an omnibus appropriation--in essence, making education a priority not just in emphasis, but in time. (Alexander didn't talk about either bill during our chat.)

In all, Alexander offered tentative support for some WEA concerns, especially in the area of fully funding education.


Rep. Kathy Haigh, Democrat, 35th Dist. (info)
Kathy Haigh, chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Education, kept pulling out a copy of the budget whenever we'd ask about upcoming agenda items. She declared her support for smaller class sizes for K-3 classes, and said she wanted to commit $50 million in the upcoming session to fund all-day kindergarten, at least for free and reduced lunch students. She "totally support[s] the simple majority" for levies, which would give rural districts greater ability to fund classroom renovations and technological upgrades. (Last year she cosponsored a similar bill that passed the House only to fail in the Senate.)

When we brought up pensions, she admitted, "I don't know anything about gainsharing. I'm not in the middle of that fight."


Summary
It's a good year for state government, which means that everyone wants a piece of the lasagna.

"It's a lot harder when you have a bunch of money," says Victor Moore, the governor's budget director and former House Appropriations staff director. "When you don't have money, there is a simple response to why you're not giving them anything. When there's money, you have to make arguments about priorities, why this investment and not another. It's tough and everybody wants their little $10 million appropriation."

Today the WEA was another voice in a cacophony of concerns, requests, and demands. When dozens of interest groups descend on the Capitol in a day, it's easy for issues to get lost in the noise. Union members who want their needs met have to keep contacting their legislators beyond Lobby Day, to keep reminding them of their promises to constituents and their obligations to the state's "paramount duty."



Sidebar: Among the more colorful and obnoxious interest groups were the Where's the Math folks, parading kids around as political props and chanting on the Capitol steps. One middle-aged demonstrator sported a placard reading, "Less Words! More Numbers!"

That would be fewer words. If only they'd had a writing WASL thirty years ago.

lobby day for the WEA

Here are some things we'll be chatting about with the legislators this lovely Lobby Day. Via email:

Smaller class sizes will improve student achievement
Parents, teachers and students all know that small class sizes help students learn. Research shows it, too. With fewer students, teachers can give students the personal attention they need and deserve. For WEA's 80,000 members, smaller class sizes are among the top three priorities for this legislative session. Gov. Chris Gregoire proposed spending $90 million on new class-size-reduction programs. That's a good start, but nowhere near enough: Washington's class sizes are 47th in the nation (pdf). Yet some lawmakers reportedly want to spend even less than the governor proposed for smaller class sizes. That's a bad idea, and it will make it even harder for our state's students to meet high academic standards. In coming weeks, WEA members will be sending their legislators a clear message: Investing in smaller class sizes will improve student achievement. Invest more, not less, on smaller class sizes.

Protect gainsharing
The proposals to reduce educators’ pensions now have bill numbers.
House Bill 1771/Senate Bill 5779 eliminate gainsharing. Senate Bill 5668 and House Bill 2116 eliminate gainsharing for future school employees. WEA opposes all of the bills and any attempt to repeal gainsharing.

Gainsharing benefits education employees in retirement Plans 1 and 3 and increases their monthly pension checks. Gainsharing benefits about 50,000 WEA members, said Dave Scott, WEA vice president....

ESA bill would pay for experience
Education staff associates (ESAs) should get salary credit for their years in the private sector. ESAs include school counselors, nurses, psychologists and therapists -- people who are well-paid in the private sector. In most cases, though, they start at the lowest salary level when they join a school staff. State law doesn't recognize their private-sector experience as a factor in salary funding. That makes it more difficult to find people to fill those positions....

Fix and fully fund the so-called NCLB, teachers say
Two teachers testified this week about a memorial urging President Bush and Congress to fix and fully fund the ESEA, the so-called No Child Left Behind Act. It's up for reauthorization this year, but it's never been fully funded. It also has major policy flaws.

"You have the opportunity to use this legislation to send a message to Congress about education reform," Suzanne Mayer told the House Education Committee. Mayer is a middle school teacher from the Highline Education Association. Spokane EA member Idalia Apodaca also testified on House Joint Memorial 4012.

Keep the high standards, but fix the WASL
The WASL should not be used as a high-stakes test that prevents students from graduating, WEA representatives testified this week. WEA supports the state's high academic standards, said Mary Lindquist, but opposes using the WASL as a barrier to graduation. The WASL should be one of several assessments used to measure whether students should graduate, she told the Senate education committee.

Lindquist, Mercer Island EA president, testified about Senate Bill 5165, which would delay using the math WASL as a graduation requirement. She encouraged lawmakers to delay all sections of the WASL and to use the time for a complete review of the WASL-based assessment system. The state must also provide adequate school funding for smaller class sizes and other needs, she said. WEA supports Senate Bill 6023, which offers students additional assessment and instruction options after failing the WASL once. Lindquist said SB 6023 is good for students and gives them flexibility.

Status of the various efforts: every single bill listed above (go to http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature, choose "bill search" and type in the number) is in committee.

As I note on my other blog, I'll have the full report later.

HB 2079 needs fixing

If I had ten dollars, and you gave me ten dollars more, and then I spent ten dollars on beer and cigarettes, would you be responsible for my binge? No, I could argue: I spent "my" ten dollars, and kept "your" ten.

That's what's at issue in the WEA's auditing, at least according to the WEA's version of the agency shop fees case. Now, in order to clarify state law, WEA-friendly (make that WEA-supported) representatives and senators have introduced a bill to allow the sort of accounting described above. As HB 2079 would have it,

A labor organization does not use agency shop fees when it uses its general treasury funds to make such contributions or expenditures if it has sufficient revenues from sources other than agency shop fees in its general treasury to fund such contributions or expenditures.

Sound Politics' Stefan Sharkansky calls it an "end run" around Davenport vs. WEA.

I've spent a while trying to figure out the case, and though I agree with the bill's purpose, its "emergency clause" strikes me as procedurally savvy, but unnecessarily divisive. It only pours kerosene on the EFF's fire, and makes the WEA look desperate in the face of a potential SCOTUS smackdown. Nix those lines, and send it to the House (and its sister to the Senate) for debate.

for WEA eyes only

Mr. Rain reads WE Magazine so you don't have to.