<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >
<channel>
<title>The Official Weblog of EFF</title>
<description>The Official Weblog of EFF</description>
<link>http://libertylive.org/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<title>A Bit of Good News on Transparency, Government Reform</title><description><![CDATA[The wizards in the Legislature will begin conjuring up a tax-and-spend budget that is acceptable to both the House and Senate during the special session, which starts today at noon. What’s the applicable Bill Shakespeare line? Oh, right: Beware the Ides of March. Still, it’s worth noting a few bright spots on the issues of transparency and government reform.

&nbsp;
An editorial in today’s The Olympian hammers the Legislature for its introduction of title-only bills—what we like to call ghost bills—and other legislative shenanigans that make government operations about as clear as muddy water. The Olympian singles out Sen. Majority Leader Lisa Brown and Sen. Margarita Prentice, chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, for their less-than-stellar actions on government transparency. Kudos to The Olympian for today’s editorial taking those lawmakers to task.
&nbsp;
Meanwhile, The Olympian also reported last week on the passage of an information services bill that could save the state at least $20 million. House Bill 3178 contains provisions—see sections 13 and 15—which set up a pilot project to contract out some of the state’s IT needs and requires an in-depth review of the plan and costs for the planned new headquarters of the Department of Information Systems.
&nbsp;

It’s not a lot of good news, but you take what you can get when the Legislature is determined to jack up taxes during an economic downturn. 
&nbsp;


That's your money 
he's taking and spending.


]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:32:30 MDT</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=2007</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Gregoire and Chopp - They be party hearty</title><description><![CDATA[A hat tip to our friends at the Washington State Wire for this hard hiting video expose that caught Gov. Christine Gregoire and Speaker Frank Chopp frolicking instead of working to resolve the state's lingering budget crisis.
&nbsp;
The levels of bad taste - social, political, fashion and more - they demonstrate shocks the conscience! Have they no shame?
&nbsp;
See for yourself...
&nbsp;
The Piper
&nbsp;



Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:38:12 MDT</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=2006</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>State Ferry Worker Travel Pay Getting Some More Attention</title><description><![CDATA[Not to toot our own horn—well, okay, we’re tooting it a little bit—but thanks to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s work on excessive mileage reimbursement rates/travel benefits of some Washington State Ferry employees, the issue is getting some scrutiny from the media and the Legislature. As far as we know, we’re the private watchdog group—it actually says “groups”—referenced in one of the stories linked below. 
&nbsp;


As it turns out, the situation is actually worse than we thought because the data we received included time reimbursements as part of the salary. In the case of the individual in the King 5 News story (see below) who claimed more than $22,000 in mileage reimbursements, his salary was actually only $60,000, but he claimed $72,950 in travel time reimbursements. 


Anyway, check out the following stories for more detailed information on how some WSF employees are upping their pay by driving long distances to and from work, as well as proposed legislation to stop the practice: 
&nbsp;

Everett Herald: Lawmakers Act to Roll Back State Ferry Workers’ Travel Perk
&nbsp;
King 5 News: Investigators: Ferry Workers Boost Pay by Driving to Work
&nbsp;
Everett Herald: Waste Alleged in Ferry System
&nbsp;
Tacoma News Tribune: Bill Would Curtail Travel Money for Ferry Workers 
&nbsp;
Everett Herald: Look Beyond Ferry Workers

&nbsp;
Our looking into this issue has raised the ire of some state ferry employees, but it’s your tax dollars in question, so you have every right to know how the state is spending public funds. 
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:09 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=2005</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>State worker benefit fund near insolvency - Legislative mismanagement blamed</title><description><![CDATA[Legislative mismanagement of the state worker benefit fund has put it close to insolvency. It’s so bad – a $197 million projected deficit - that the Insurance Commissioner’s office said that it if it were a private company it could be put into receivership. 

&nbsp;
The issue is also entangled in as yet unresolved state budget and tax politics that will be the focus of next week’s special session of the Legislature. And the Legislature’s proposed boosts in the state’s share of employee health-care benefit costs may violate state laws governing negotiating public-sector union contracts.&nbsp;

Washington state provides generous medical and other benefits to 336,000 state employees, retirees and dependents through the Health Care Authority. &nbsp;63 percent of them are self-insured by the state, meaning that the state acts as their insurance carrier. The balance of them are covered by HMOs and Preferred Provider plans such as Group Health and Kaiser Permanente. 

Overseeing the HCA is the Public Employees Benefits Board, a nine-member board appointed by the governor. PEBB sets benefit eligibility requirements, approves premium contributions for eligible employees and approves health-insurance plan benefits.

The state spends $1.7 billion per fiscal year on benefits. PEBB is tasked by the Legislature to take the funding given it and craft benefit plans accordingly. The difficulty is that the Legislature doesn’t always play fair leaving PEBB holding a now empty bag.

The state pays 88 percent of the cost of benefit plans leaving all employees – union and non-union – to pick up 12 percent. For union employees, the state pays 100 percent of the cost of dental, basic life and long-term disability insurance.

The HCA plan is prospectively funded, which means that premiums paid today will be used to pay bills that have not yet been incurred. PEBB is always making its best educated guess when it tells the governor and the Legislature what it will take to remain in the black.

PEBB tries to maintain a level of cash reserve equal to between seven and eight percent of projected claims. That’s where the problem arose.

Fiscal year 2008 saw PEBB generate a reserve of $200 million based upon state premiums of $707 per employee per month. This put it $120 million over its standard cash-reserve level. Rather than commending it for good stewardship, the Legislature saw the reserve as a source of quick cash to pay pressing bills. It forced the board to spend the reserve down by dropping per-employee funding to $561 per month for FY 2009.&nbsp;

According to Tim Smolen, a PEBB budget manager, the $561 figure represented deliberate underfunding of the program by the Legislature. The board had recommended an increase to $723 in order to stabilize what it saw were increased costs down the road.

“We knew we would be in a significant hole because the legislature didn’t adequately fund what they knew the cash needs would be,” said Smolen.

FY 2010 saw funding jump back up to $745 per employee per month, and then to the current rate of $768 for FY 2011.

According to PEBB, each dollar of premium payment represents $1.4 million in eventual revenue to the HCA.
&nbsp;
In December of last year, Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler wrote to Gov. Christine Gregoire to advise her that the HCA’s condition would be considered “financially hazardous” if it were a private insurer.

Kreidler wrote that “if it were a domestic insurer, the HCA would be subject to receivership proceedings, potentially mandatory.” 

Kreidler’s analysis noted that the downward change in HCA’s net income and cash on hand from June 30, 2008 to June 30, 2009 was a quarter of a billion dollars in each case. Net income went from a positive of $77 million to a negative $251 million, while cash went from a positive of $58 million to a negative $248 million.

Now that PEBB projects the HCA to be $197 million in the hole, the governor and the Legislature are scrambling to make ends meet. When the reserve account was flush, lawmakers cleaned it out to pay general fund bills. Now the House wants to sweep other designated funds to pay HCA bills.

PEBB’s $197 million projection is down from a $220-million projection at the start of the legislative session in January. PEBB will make another projection in mid-May.

At PEBB’s suggestion, Gov. Gregoire’s December budget proposal increased premium payments to $830 per month, an amount PEBB said would generate adequate cash to meet its obligations. The Senate wanted an increase to $795 per month. The House went all the way and more.

In an amendment to Senate Bill 6444, Rep. Mark Ericks, D-Bothell, proposed upping HCA funding from the current level of $768 to $863 per month. Ericks proposed raiding a data processing fund and a public works fund to the tune of $43 million to pay for part of the increase.

According to PEBB’s Smolen, $863 per month should be sufficient to maintain current HCA benefit levels. The other numbers would require PEBB to adjust HCA plans to shift more of the cost burden to subscribers by way of higher co-pays, deductibles and the like.

Ericks’ amendment passed the House by a voice vote last week.

A call to Ericks’ office requesting comment was not returned by 2:00 p.m. Friday.

But questions have arisen as to whether any of this is legal - can the governor and Legislature legally alter plan funding? Or have they run afoul of state law governing how union contracts are negotiated?

About half of the employees covered by the HCA are also covered by union contracts. The state law governing how those contracts are negotiated is specific in requiring a multi-step process before the Legislature can consider approving negotiated wages and fringe benefits. The law specifically denies authority to the Legislature to come up with numbers of its own, which some suggest was done here

These critics also question whether the governor has complied with state law.

The law sets out a process for the governor to request funding for negotiated wage and benefit adjustments. It includes certification by the director of the office of financial management that they’re feasible financially for the state.

The Legislature must approve or reject them as a whole on an up-or-down vote.

This interpretation is disputed by Victor Moore, director of the office of financial management. He said that the bargaining law does not apply to the Legislature’s PEBB and HCA funding decisions, only to changes in the percentage of premiums paid by the state and workers covered by union contacts. 

Because the state does not bargain the amount it pays per employee, the bargaining law is not applicable. If the state wanted to change the percentage of the total premium, then the law would apply, he said.

Of course, this begs the question of why hasn’t the governor sought to negotiate a lower percentage payment for the state?&nbsp;The same law that Moore says is inapplicable also provides a way for the governor to open contracts for just such a negotiation, a move many Republicans in the Legislature and a number of newspaper editorial boards have advocated as part of an overall solution to the state’s budget-deficit problems.

An editorial in Thursday’s Seattle Times said:

Many voices, including this page, told legislators to declare a fiscal emergency and reopen state employee contracts. Raising the employee share of health-care premiums from 12 percent to 20 percent — a share that is still below the average in the private sector — would have saved about $50 million in this biennium. The Legislature didn't do it.

Neither the governor nor either house of the Legislature have indicated any willingness to follow this suggestion.

Another wrinkle to any hope of stabilizing the HCA is the federal government. Federal law regulates employee benefit plans. The law allows adjustments in benefit levels only on an annual basis. In the HCA’s case, that occurs each January. Yet the state’s fiscal year starts on July 1.

So whatever funding eventually is agreed to by the governor and the Legislature, there will be six-month lag time before benefits can be adjusted, if necessary. Whatever holes exist now will become six-month’s deeper.

State worker unions are adamant in demanding funding at the House level. The Washington Federation of State Employees says that the Senate level of $795 per month is an effort to balance the budget on the backs of state employees.

Next week’s special session of the Legislature will determine what the final funding number will be.
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:08:26 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=2004</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Senator Tracey Eide, sponsor of the police state</title><description><![CDATA[The most beautiful invention of Anglo-American law is the law of torts, your right to sue someone who has caused you harm. My copy of Torts in a Nut Shell provides the basics.

The one common element of all torts is that someone has sustained a loss or harm as the result of some act or failure to act by another....
&nbsp;
Tort law has three main functions or goals: (1) compensating persons sustaining a loss or harm as the result of another's conduct; (2) placing the cost of that compensation on those who, injustice, ought to bear it, but only on such persons; and (3) preventing future losses and harms.


Tort law creates incentives that force us all to internalize the risks that we might create for other people. It's a great, even beautiful, way to regulate private behaviors like, say, people talking on their cell phones while driving.
 


 
&nbsp;

 

 

 
Sen. Eide has another way. It's not beautiful, but has the fringe benefits of giving government more power and, I'm sure, making her feel really good about herself. She's the sponsor of Senate Bill 6345, now headed to Governor Gregoire, which says police can detain and fine you if they think you're talking into a cell phone or reading a text message while driving. 
&nbsp;
Your driving may be impeccable, safer than every person around you, but put a cell phone to your ear and Sen. Eide will sic the cops on you. You might never harm anyone, but Sen. Eide is willing to harm you. According to KNDO, Eide "hopes, with the new law in place, the roads will finally be safe."

&nbsp;
The beauty of tort law is that it works on the individual level to make people think about potential consequences of their choices, not just about whether the cop saw you or not. If you harm someone while negligently talking on your cell phone--on the road, on the sidewalk, on an escalator--you're not just morally responsible, you're financially liable. In fact, in tort law moral responsibility and legal liability go hand in hand in a way that makes sense to regular people. When government regulates behavior that doesn't cause harm, the law is amoral at best, immoral at worst, and unintuitable.

&nbsp;
The legislature actually has the power to adjust tort law. They can tip the scales against cell phone drivers who cause harm, making it easier for them to be held liable. Of course, that would only directly impact drivers who actually hurt someone else. Indirectly, it would make drivers adjust their behavior--not to avoid getting a ticket, but to avoid causing harm to other people.

&nbsp;
Sen. Eide's bill gives police more power, puts harmless citizens on the defensive, and will likely do little to nothing to actually prevent dangerous driving.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:24:41 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=2003</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Special session to begin Monday</title><description><![CDATA[The Washington State Legislature has adjourned its 2010 regular session without coming up with a budget or a way to pay for it.
&nbsp;
Gov. Christine Gregoire has just announced that a special session will be called starting at noon this coming Monday to take care of unfinished business. It is hoped that the session won't last longer than one week, but since the governor is calling the session, there is no limit on what might be taken up by legislators.
&nbsp;
"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session." Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:41:21 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=2002</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Employer Gag Rule is Back</title><description><![CDATA[


















Just when we thought the issue had blown over, the Worker
Privacy Act has somehow found its way back into the supplemental operating
budget. 
&nbsp;
The Worker Privacy Act, (or Employer Gag Bill, as we
like to call it) didn’t even make it on the table this legislative session.
Instead, lawmakers decided to wait and see if a similar bill passed in Oregon
last year would survive the legal challenges filed
against it by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.&nbsp; In addition, political
heat still emanating from 2009 gave legislators reason to put this bill on
the shelf until things cool off.
&nbsp;
Not only that, but our state AG
issued a statement last July proclaiming that the bill is preempted by
federal law which protects an employer’s freedom of expression as long as it
doesn’t threaten punishment or promise benefit to an employee.
&nbsp;
Just today, Jocelyn McCabe of AWB announced on their
blog that upon reviewing the 2010 Senate operating budget proposal, AWB
General Counsel Kris Tefft found a scaled-back version of the gag language
inserted in a striking amendment by the House. The language would apply to employers
or service providers who receive DSHS funding.
&nbsp;
McCabe cites the troubling language of SB 6444 as
the following:
&nbsp;
“No employer, provider, or entity receiving state funds to
provide long-term care services or services to the developmentally disabled may
use these funds to assist, promote, or deter union organization.”
&nbsp;
According to our own General Counsel, Mike Reitz, this bill
is fraught with substantive and procedural problems. 
 
&nbsp;
“The legislature cannot amend substantive law in an
appropriations bill, especially when the subject matter was previously
contained within separate legislation that ultimately failed. The prohibition
on ‘logrolling’ is to prevent the legislature from changing the law in a
lengthy budget bill without adequate public review—which seems to be what the
legislature is doing here,” Reitz says.
&nbsp;
H/t to “The Piper” for drawing our attention to this matter.

&nbsp;
 

&nbsp;



]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:18:47 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=2001</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Health Care Reform: What Americans Want vs. the Desire of President Obama and Co. </title><description><![CDATA[

President Obama continues his desperate bid to rally the troops in support of stalled health care reform legislation (ObamaCare) that poll after poll shows a majority of Americans don’t want. 

&nbsp;
As it turns out, most Americans instinctively understand the problems facing the nation’s health care system can be addressed without a 2,700-page bill that sets up a Rube Goldberg-style plan that will essentially nationalize one-sixth of the economy and move us toward a European-style welfare state. 
&nbsp;
Most Americans also instinctively know that rather than adding another level of government bureaucracy to the health care system that will almost certainly result in higher costs and lower-quality care, there are many simple, market-based reforms to help control costs and expand health insurance coverage.
&nbsp;

For example: having everyone paying for health care receive the same tax benefits; in-state high-risk insurance pools allowing those with pre-existing conditions to get affordable coverage without upping non-high-risk pool costs; getting rid of the 50 health insurance “cartels” by allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines; transparency in terms of price and quality of care; and real tort reform to deal with “defensive medicine.”
&nbsp;


So why are President Obama and many Democrats in Congress so eager to pass such bad legislation that will probably cost the majority party seats in Congress? Is it because they truly believe their version of health care reform will work, and they’re nobly moving forward even at the expense of their own careers? Please. Is it because they think passing something—anything—is more politically acceptable than not getting anything passed? Maybe, but that’s hard to believe, given the legislation’s incredible unpopularity. 
&nbsp;

The real reason—and President Obama and Democrats can’t say this out loud—is that they do prefer a European-style welfare state. Or, as columnist Mark Steyn ominously noted in a recent article, “governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible.”
&nbsp;

This more than anything, explains why President Obama—who in the past has stated on the record that he favors a single-payer universal health care system—is so anxious to impose his liberal health care reform plan on a center-right country that merely changed parties, not ideology, in the elections of 2006 and 2008. It also goes a long way toward explaining why congressional Democrats apparently have no shame in violating democratic principles by potentially using budget reconciliation to pass such sweeping change that only a minority of Americans support.


Democrats are so determined to foist their version of health care reform upon America at all costs, that not even nonsensical pronouncements by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who is no threat to Einstein’s reputation) about having to “…pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it…”&nbsp;can kill&nbsp;ObamaCare…at least not yet. 
&nbsp;








Not Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
&nbsp;
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:58:39 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=2000</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Getting Hosed by the Washington State Legislature</title><description><![CDATA[Need I say more?
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:11:56 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1999</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Why Sin Taxes are Economically Wrong</title><description><![CDATA[With the state of Washington facing a $2.8 billion budget gap, there’s been a lot of talk about proposed sin taxes—that is, a tax added to products or services that are seen as vices, such as alcohol, tobacco and gambling. 

&nbsp;
But while sin taxes may be preferred by policymakers and even some members of the public to across-the-board neutral taxes, is it sound economic policy? It’s not, according to two publications put out last year by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center: Taxing Sins: Are Excises Taxes Efficient? and Taxing Sin. 

The former concludes that sin taxes do not necessarily advance the overall public interest, may hit the poor disproportionately hard and rarely work as intended. The latter addresses common myths associated with sin taxes.
&nbsp;


Nevertheless, sin taxes are levied by government to discourage people—at least ostensibly— from partaking in such activities. In reality, government favors sin taxes because they provide a source of government revenue. It’s no coincidence that when states run deficits, the sin tax is typically one of the first taxes recommended by lawmakers to help fill the budget. Washington state is no exception. During this legislative session—soon to go into special session—there have been proposed taxes on candy, cola and cigarettes. 
&nbsp;

Why? Sin taxes are more politically palatable to state leaders, as they are usually more easily accepted by the general public because they are indirect taxes that only affect those who use the “sinful” products or services in question. Still, that doesn’t make it good economic policy.
&nbsp;
Here’s a wacky idea members of the Washington State Legislature might want to consider regarding tax policy: Be neutral. The main purpose of taxes is to raise money for programs, not to play social engineer by micromanaging a complex economy with penalties (sin taxes) and subsidies. In short, the tax system should minimize distortions to the economy, interfering as little as possible with the decisions of a free people in the marketplace.
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:40:07 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1998</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Response to Homeschoolers' opposition to Public Online Learning</title><description><![CDATA[I discovered something interesting during the debate over whether the state should cut funding for K-6 Alternative Learning Experience programs (which include public online learning programs). Some homeschool groups oppose public school programs that allow kids to learn at home.
&nbsp;
They have some legitimate concerns, and we are happy to address them. Check out our Facebook Cause, "Support Online Learning in Washington," and read the bulletin entitled "Are protecting homeschooling and having public online learning options mutually exclusive goals? We don't think so."
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:42:20 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1997</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Bellevue City Council accused of violating Open Public Meetings Act </title><description><![CDATA[Publicola reports that three Bellevue City Council members accused the other four of violating the state's Open Public Meetings Act by negotiating the language of a letter to Sound Transit in private meetings by phone and email.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
The OPMA states: “All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.”  RCW 42.30.030.&nbsp; Meetings where action occurs is defined very broadly, and can include simple negotiations, deliberations, and discussions on an issue that will eventually come before the entire governing body. 
&nbsp;
The whole purpose of the OPMA is to prevent public bodies from consensus-building or vote-counting in private before conducting an open meeting. Such practices make a mockery of the public meeting requirements. 

&nbsp;
This article from the Attorney General's Open Government Ombudsman should be required reading for councilmembers.

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:03:39 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1996</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Washington state ranks 8th in the nation ... for union membership</title><description><![CDATA[The Puget Sound Business Journal reported yesterday that unions in Washington state have a total number of 574,000 members, the 8th highest number among all states in the U.S.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
In addition, 20.2% of Washington's workforce is unionized, making it the 4th highest percentage of unionized workers in the nation.&nbsp; 

&nbsp;

In 2009, those state with the lowest union membership rates (falling below 5.0 percent) were North Carolina (3.1 percent), Arkansas (4.2 percent), South Carolina (4.5 percent), Georgia (4.6
percent), Virginia (4.7 percent), and Mississippi (4.8 percent). All of these states are "Right-to-Work" states, meaning that state law gives employees the right to decide for themselves 	whether or not to join or financially support a union.
&nbsp;
 Conversely, the four
states with union membership rates over 20.0 percent in 2009 -- New York
(25.2 percent), Hawaii (23.5 percent), Alaska (22.3 percent), and
Washington (20.2 percent) -- are not "Right-to-Work" states, meaning that union membership is mandatory for employees who work in a unionized workplace.

&nbsp;
The correlation may seem obvious: when given the choice to join a union, not all employees favor doing so. This report serves as a reminder that coercive union membership does not mean the same thing as true representation.





]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:44:16 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1995</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Insider Hearings Rampant in Olympia</title><description><![CDATA[What do Olympia insiders know that the public doesn't? Apparently a good deal.
&nbsp;
Another last-minute "public" hearing on a ghost bill took place in the House Ways &amp; Means Committee today at noon. We might as well start calling these displays what they are: insider hearings. The&nbsp;proposed text for HB 2365, nebulously entitled "Relating to general government programs to implement the 2009-11 operating budget," was not available to the public until the start of the hearing.
&nbsp;
As it turned out, the bill was a resurrection of a&nbsp;failed Senate bill that was voted down on March 8. 
&nbsp;
Given the fact that the text of the bill was not available until the hearing started, it was baffling that several interested parties showed up to testify for or against specific parts of the bill, mostly in relation to&nbsp;the proposal to slap a&nbsp;$1 surcharge every six months on car insurance policies to prevent auto theft. Nevermind the fact that the legislature raided the auto theft prevention account&nbsp;in&nbsp;last year's budget&nbsp;to fund other priorities.
&nbsp;
Several questions come to mind here:
1) Why is the House holding a hearing on a bill that already failed the Senate? 
2) Why bother to hold a public hearing with only a few hours' notice&nbsp;on a bill that the public hasn't had time to review? (I've asked this question before).
3) How is it that several interested parties knew the content of the bill in advance, but the public didn't? Interested members of law enforcement, defense attorneys and prosecutors all praised the bill, and a couple of insurance lobbyists disparaged it. 
&nbsp;
So much for transparency and public participation. It's hardly earth-shattering news that insiders run the show in politics. That's why safeguards exist, such as requiring five-day notices before public hearings occur,&nbsp;prohibiting public hearings on title-only bills, etc. But these safeguards can be waived by legislators, and they've clearly made good use of that power. 
&nbsp;
Though the public's opportunity to meaningfully participate&nbsp;has been shoved aside with this and&nbsp;various other ghost bills that have popped up this legislative session, obviously the Olympia insiders are still getting a heads up. If only we commoners were so lucky.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:49:51 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1994</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Educational Impasse</title><description><![CDATA[“Impasse” -- that just about sums it up.

The House and Senate are dueling over the right combination of education policy changes, and unless they settle things by the end of tomorrow, Gov. Gregoire says we're looking at a special session.

Here’s the background. The House’s bill, HB 2776, is a sequel to last year’s HB 2261, an education overhaul that tasked the legislature with developing prototypical schools as the basis for new funding formulas. The House wants to follow through on that task. 

Representatives also point to the state’s loss in its recent adequacy lawsuit, the judge ruling that the state is failing its constitutional duty to “amply provide” for education funding. (Check out our press release on why this ruling was worse than pointless.)

Meanwhile, the Senate has its eyes on reforms that would qualify the state for Race to the Top (RTTT) funds. They argue that HB 2776 would merely create unfunded mandates and that now is not the time. Rather, Washington should focus on legislation that would make it eligible for a cut of the $4.35 billion in federal dollars. They propose those changes in SB 6696. Some of them look promising. (If Washington really wanted to compete, though, school choice would be back on the table. Apparently, that’s not the “Washington Way.”)


&nbsp;
Here’s how it’s gone down so far.


    The House drafts and passes HB 2776, following up on last year’s legislation and creating new funding formulas.
    The Senate drafts and passes SB 6696, with a number of changes to help Washington qualify for RTTT funds. 
    The House sends its bill to the Senate, and the Senate strips it of obligations to restructure funding.
    The Senate sends its bill to the House, whose members proceed to add funding reform language to it.
    The bills are sent back to their houses of origin.
    Impasse.


The clock is ticking. KPLU offers detailed coverage of the situation. 
&nbsp;
Update: Read what Sen. Lisa Brown has to say about the debate. 

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:38:40 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1993</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>