Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Olympia Wrap Up, Pt. 1

Warning: This article is 2000 words long. Are online articles allowed to be that long?

Josh Cohen and Camden Swita contributed to this report.

With the special session to resolve the budget standoff under way in Olympia this week (Nay Sales Tax vs. Yea Sales Tax), some of the non-budget policy stuff the legislature worked on during the regular session is getting ignored.

PubliCola’s Oly team (me, Josh Cohen, Teodora Popescu, and our new newsie Camden Swita) tried to keep up with the maelstrom of policy bills all session. Here’s a wrap up on some of  the bills we followed as the official session came to a close last week.

First up—civil liberties issues.

Sen. Ed Murray’s (D-43) move to abolish the death sentence in Washington State had  public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 22, but it never received a vote in that committee.

“I strongly favor this bill,” Judiciary Chair Sen. Adam Kline (D-37) says. “But it is not the year to do a bill like this, we have the political controversy of the murder of six police officers, four at one time, it’s pretty against the grain of the political atmosphere.”

The ACLU of Washington fought to prevent the Senate and House form passing bail reform bills, introduced in reaction to the Maurice Clemmon’s shootings. Despite its efforts, a version of the constitutional amendment to grant judges greater authority in denying bail to violent offenders make it to the ballot next November.

Though disappointed that the bill passed, the ACLU of WA’s legislative director, Shankar Narayan said they’re happy to have successfully lobbied for language that won’t cast quite as broad a net over who can be denied their constitutional right to bail. During the session Narayan worried that an individual accused of committing several “lesser” felonies could face life imprisonment despite the fact that his or her crimes were far less heinous than the “worst of the worst” criminals like Clemmons.

“Although the legislature moved in a positive direction by including some bounding language in the amendments, we still believe this issue needs to be looked at by a group of experts to determine whether the constitutional amendment is really necessary,” said Narayan.

Tacoma Sen. Rosa Franklin’s (D-29) drug overdose bill, which provides legal immunity to individuals reporting a drug overdose, was signed by the Governor on March 10 and will effective on June 10 of this year.

Other ACLU-supported drug bills, like Seattle Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles’ (D-36) pot decriminalization bill, and Seattle Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson’s (D-36) pot legalization bill both died very early in the session, as expected. Both bills drew crowds at the public hearing. Although, a medical marijuana bill—expanding who can prescribe medical marijuana—passed last week.

Also: Tacoma Rep. Jeannie Darneille’s (D-27) bill to ban the shackling of a woman in labor was passed with enormous support in both chambers. It now awaits Gov. Chris Gregoire’s signature.

Advocates from Planned Parenthood weren’t as successfule as their liberal cohorts from the ACLU. Early in the session, we reported on Bellevue Sen. Rodney Tom’s (D-48) limited service pregnancy centers bill. The bill would have required the centers (which usually don’t provide abortions and often have religious affiliation), to disclose more information to the public. It’s all for naught, however, as the bill died in committee in February.

Seattle Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-43) also waded in the culture wars. He had what seemed to be a pretty small bill that would have clarified the language in the law to recognize same sex marriages from out of state as state registered domestic partnerships in Washington. Apparently, that was a bigger deal than one might think. The bill never made it to the House floor and died in February at cutoff.

The education reform bill we obsessed over passed on the last day of session and is on the governor’s desk.

The bill, hyped as “historic” by the House, is meant to make Washington a more competitive candidate for federal Race to the Top funding, the carrot in Obama’s education reform initiative. Although the legislation includes many musts of the reform movement,  many reformers (and off-the-record Democrats scared of the teachers union) think the bill falls short.

The big changes: It provides alternative routes toward teacher certification; makes it easier for schools to get rid of bad principals; gives more power to the state to deal with flopping schools; and actually locks in education funding for an expanded definition of the basics.

However, the bill left comprehensive teacher evaluations on the cutting room floor—or, at least, sidelined uniform evaluations to a pilot project. The teachers’ union ixnayed the idea.

With a strong sense of desperation over the budget crisis, many legislators turned to, uh, creative ideas for raising revenue. One plan came from Lynnwood Sen. Paull Shin (D-21) who proposed putting advertising on school busses. The bill never made it to the Senate floor, so kids will have to just settle for inadvertently consuming advertising before school, in school, after school, and on the weekends.

Another big revenue idea was privatizing liquor stores. The bill died in committee. Turned out, studies showed it wouldn’t have raised much revenue in the short term (which is when the state needed money) and the long term payback was debatable. The governor also opposed it because, she argued, only big companies like Rite Aid would have been able to win out in the auction for licenses—which wouldn’t have created any new jobs, and moreover, low wage, inexperienced sales clerks wouldn’t be as likely to safeguard against underage sales.

Transportation was also a big issue this session. Eastside Rep. Deb Eddy (D-48) had a big win (and a win over her boss, Speaker of the House Frank Chopp) by ushering through a bill that chose a 520 option and gets work started.

“Let my people go.” Rep. Deb Eddy on 520

Chopp had joined forces with westside neighbors (and Capitol Hill legislators Ed Murray and Jamie Pedersen—and Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn) to advocate for an alternative plan.

The Seattleites wanted a plan that didn’t wreak much havoc on Montlake, provided better transit connections to the planned U.W. light rail station, and made room for rapid transit instead of car lanes. A compromise was struck so that the Seattle could continue to modify the plans on the westside, but the 520 bill—Eddy calls it the “Let My People Go” bill—gives the green light to begin construction on the new 520 which could limit Seattle’s options.

“Once you’ve started work on one plan—six lanes with no infrastructure for [rapid transit]—you’re kind of done,” Sen. Murray says.

520 was the high profile fight, but there were a ton of other transportation bills.

If your blood boils at the thought of watching the Microsoft Connector bus cruise by in a transit only lane while you’re stuck in traffic, you’ll be happy to know that Senate transportation chair Mary Margaret Haugen’s (D-10) bill is dead. As we reported in February, Sen. Haugen’s bill would have allowed private carriers to use bus-rapid-transit lanes and public park-and-rides, currently reserved for public transit. Things looked bad when it passed nearly unanimously through the Senate, but the bill died when it stalled in the House Transportation Committee.

The Senate killed Rep. Marko Liias’ (D-21) transit funding fee amendment. The amendment would have allowed Pierce and Community Transit to pass vehicle-license fees up to $20 to help restore Sunday bus service. It would also put a $100 fee on the ballot to restore other cuts to transit service.

Like Rep. Marko Liias’ transit funding bill, Sen. Joe McDermott’s (D-34) Vulnerable Users (bicyclists) bill rose from the dead once before finally laying down to die in the Senate Rules Committee.

The legislature passed a ban on texting and talking on your cell phone while driving. Doing so could earn you a $101 ticket.

North Seattle Rep. Scott White (D-46) had a bill that would have regulated all the limo and town-car drivers in Seattle. The bill made it through the House, but never made it to a final vote in the Senate.

Of course, we can’t really ignore the budget. In fact, a bunch of the policy issues we’ve been tracking are in play during this week’s budget negotiations.

The House and Senate agree on raising the Hazardous Substance Tax (a priority of the environmental community this year), but not on how much they’d like to see it increase. The tax rate is currently at .7 percent of the value of the substance—which includes petroleum products (the stuff you put in your car to make it go). The House supports an increase of .85 percent and a tax exemption for exports (which calms down the oil industry), generating a little over $100 million a year. The Senate wants an increase of .5 percent generating about $100 million for cleanup.

This proposed tax increase has been one of the most controversial issues this session, packing committee rooms with environmentalists and oil company employees alike. Both bills currently state that none of the money would go into the state general fund, an idea environmentalists originally used to sweeten the deal for legislators, but which the oil industry called a bait and switch. If the striking amendment in the House version is adopted the funds would be “unspecified,” raising questions about the destinations of those funds.

Another big issue for environmental advocates—and also at play in the budget negotiations because it involves a tax exemption—is the renewable energy incentive. The House wants to extend it and the Senate wants to curtail it.

Social services are also at play as the House and Senate negotiate the budget.

There’s a marked difference in how the Senate and House are funding some facets of the state’s largest entity, the Department of Social & Health Services.

The House has earmarked $90 million for General Assistance for the Unemployable (GAU), which would provide $339 grants for living expenses plus medical benefits to people who cannot be employed due to physical and mental disabilities. This plan depends on Obama’s health reform bill passing, because $71 million of its funding would come from federal dollars.

The Senate, on the other hand, has co-opted a GAU model, originally floated by Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D-36) as a small pilot program in the House’s version, and now championed by Sen. Jim Hargrove (D-24) as a striker amendment. It’s based on San Francisco’s “Care Not Cash” program, and would force GAU recipients to use a housing voucher or participate in a housing program in order receive a $50 stipend, meant to cover their other living expenses. They’d still receive medical benefits, however. A major hole in the Senate’s plan? The voucher program is unfunded.

The Senate and House also disagree on the Working Connections Child Care program, which provides working parents with money for daycare. Bottom line, the Senate has allotted $30 million for the program and the House has given it zilch.

A high earners income tax ($200,000 salary for a single person), $300,000 for a single parent, and $400,000 for married couple) caused a stir when it was re-introduced last week. And Senate liberals hoped it would get some play in the special session. But Rep. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, the main sponsor of that legislation, said that bill isn’t going anywhere.

Another budget related bill we followed this session is taking center stage during week’s budget negotiations. Rep. Hans Dunshee’s (D-44) pet project to retrofit public schools is getting a new head of steam after being stifled by a conspicuous absence in the Senate’s budget.

Dunshee is claiming it will generate 38,000 private sector jobs, $2.5 billion in projects to retrofit energy-wasting schools and public buildings, and thus save taxpayers $190 million every year. The program is funded by $861 worth of “Hans Bonds,” general obligation bonds issued by the state, which is why the Senate has a problem with it. Where’s the money to pay the interest on those bonds going to come from, they ask? the deficient general fund?

Gov. Chris Gregoire, however, is absolutely cuckoo for jobs, stating publicly and often that the key to Washington’s recovery will be job generation. It’s likely she’s pulling strings in the final negotiations between the House and Senate to push Dunshee’s bill through.


  • ivan

    Rosa Franklin, Not Rose. 29th District, not 27th. Please fix.

    We'll deal with your snarky little union-bashing comment later.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Yeah, what's up with dumping on the teacher's union?

  • ivan

    Well it's “cool” and “hip” and “edgy” to bash unions, because unions are for old people, and hipsters are too cool to need unions. So in Josh's shallow little hipster mind, Democrats are “afraid of the teachers union” when in reality they are doing what Democrats are SUPPOSED to do — standing up for working people.

    I'm waiting for Josh, or for some corporate type, to tell me how we are supposed to attract and retain ANY good teachers in this state, when the entire thrust of all the so-called “reform” is to erode teachers' job security and bargaining power.

  • Josh Feit

    I wasn't “union bashing.” I reported what several Democrats told me (and is obvious anyway), that they caved to the teachers' union by ignoring some amendments on teacher evaluations. This could jeopardize Washington state's bid for federal money.

    On the other hand, as I reported last week

    http://www.publicola.net/2010/03/05/education-r…

    OSPI Director, Randy Dorn, who was initially for the amendments, did point out that the some states who ignored the unions and passed stringent evaluation standards, might flop themselves because there's no buy in on the ground.

    So, maybe what Olympia did, compromising to get broader buy in, was a smart move. Could be. We'll see.

    Ivan, the thrust of the reform movement is to pay teachers higher, professional salaries. Poster Child for reform, Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of the District of Columbia School System, is calling for salaries of up to $130K.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/234592

    I'm glad you think I'm hep, Ivan. But lets' be serious: I run a wonky web site where I write about education reform bills in Olympia.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed fattailed

    Pay more money, perhaps,, but in exchange for less voice in curriculum and classroom management and close to zero job security.

  • ivan

    Salary is only one part of job security and bargaining power, and to just quote what Newsweek says Michelle Rhee says is hardly to get at the root of the issue.

    Mentioning one hypothetical, theoretical salary level, floated by a management type, is misleading. The thrust of the “reform movement” is to to strip bargaining power from bargaining units altogether. You can tiptoe around that inconvenient truth all you want to, but whoever does an honest job of reporting will ultimately come to the same conclusion.

    The sooner you quit accepting at face value what these “reform” advocates, with their slick, practiced talking points form the Broad and Gates Foundations, tell you, the sooner you might arrive at the truth.

    They want to make all public school teachers “at-will employees,” then be able to hire and fire and promote at will the most accomplished bootlickers and test-score promoters. In opther words, they want to make our school systems just like corporations, where they skim your tax dollars right off the top.

    If you think that's the right way to run a public education system, I have an Alpine ski lodge in Florida to sell you. There's more, of course, but you can do your own work and find it.

  • roots

    when is the truth snarky?

  • Sparky

    A lot of evidence shows that teacher quality is the only factor that consistently and significantly influences student performance (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/c1s5.htm and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Te…). How do you propose to improve teacher quality when unions prevent teacher evaluation, better pay for better performance, and removal of under-performing teachers? Would you suggest that we run hospitals the same way? Whoever wants to be a doctor and passes the right test should get to practice for a lifetime, regardless of their results – since health care is a public good? In the real world, just because you don't do well at one job doesn't mean you'll never find another one. Sometimes it's about fit. Go where you can do your best – whether it's a different subject/specialization, a different school/company, or a different profession. Why are teachers unions so afraid of that? Why do they fight for “security” – I call it stagnancy – instead of better performance under better conditions?

    I think that's a big part of the reason that teaching continues to attract those with average academic abilities. From the NSF page: “Graduates whose college entrance examination scores were in the top quartile were half as likely as those in the bottom quartile to prepare to teach (9 versus 18 percent).” Yes, teachers' SAT scores have improved somewhat in recent years, but they are still just about average (1052 vs 1014 for the general population and 1082 for all college graduates), and most of the improvement has been seen in high school teachers. See http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/T…. I'm not saying that an SAT score determines whether a teacher is any good, but it has been shown to be correlated with academic achievement in both high school and college, and students perform better under teachers with stronger academic backgrounds (again, according to the NSF).

    People who are smart and capable often want to have the chance to excel and prove themselves, to prove the worth of their abilities and see the results. In teaching, it is very hard to do that. There are few tangible rewards for great teaching. Great teachers, mediocre teachers, and poor teachers alike get the same raises and the same teaching opportunities. Why would a smart person choose a career that does not reward their efforts? Some do choose it out of the goodness of their hearts, and their desire to help people, but here's what happens to them: they're more likely to teach in private schools and high income schools, and they're more likely to quit teaching. Again, according to the NSF:

    * Teachers in the top quartile of college entrance examination scores were more than twice as likely as teachers in the bottom quartile to teach in private schools (26 versus 10 percent).

    * Teachers in the top quartile of scores were about one-third as likely as teachers in the bottom quartile to teach in high-poverty schools (10 versus 31 percent).

    * Graduates in the top quartile of scores who did teach were twice as likely as those in the bottom quartile to leave the profession within four years (32 versus 16 percent) (Henke, Chen, and Geis 2000.)

    I think we should be encouraging the best and the brightest to teach. Pay them well, and make performance matter. I myself am considering teaching, but knowing that it will take me 15 years to reach the salary I currently make in THE NON-PROFIT SECTOR is something of a deterrent. No matter how well I do as a teacher, it will have no impact on my pay or how I advance in the field. Unless I teach in a fancy private school. Even the non-profit sector has better rewards than that. It's a shame.

  • Maxxine

    “As we reported in February, Sen. Haugen’s bill would have allowed private carriers to use bus-rapid-transit lanes and public park-and-rides, currently reserved for public transit. Things looked bad when it passed nearly unanimously through the Senate, but the bill died when it stalled in the House Transportation Committee.”

    I don't believe that is true. See ESSB 6381 – section 221 – subsection 13. That's the supplemental transpo budget. Haugen made transit funding contingent on letting private carriers get access to public facilities. Gov has a chance to veto it.

  • ivan

    Sparky says, perhaps unknowingly repeating right-wing talking points:

    “How do you propose to improve teacher quality when unions prevent teacher evaluation, better pay for better performance, and removal of under-performing teachers?”

    Unions do not prevent teacher evaluation. Unions (which are teachers) demand fair evaluation procedures performed by objective criteria that are agreed to by all parties, and that are not arbitrary or capricious.

    School districts, being staffed largely by bureaucrats instead of educators, can't get it right, and haven't yet.

    As for better pay for better performance, who is to decide what constitutes better performance, and on what basis? Some test score, maybe? Or some other bureaucratic standard? Or who kisses the principal's ass, maybe?

    As for removal of underperforming teachers, what are we to do? Let principals or district bureaucrats cherry-pick the teachers they like and don't like, and make up some cockamamie bullshit about “underperforming?”

    Unions aren't “afraid” of these things. Management doesn't want them at the table. It is because these issues have defied solution for so many years that teachers have said: “Look, we'll go with what we KNOW is “evenhanded,” one salary scale and layoffs based on seniority.

    Are there underperforming teachers who should be sacked if possible? Of course there are. Has this happened pursuant to collective bargaining agreements? Of course it has.

    I take your point about rewards. Other countries have raised the salary scales for ALL teachers, and the results speak for themselves. The problem we face here is that too many Americans, and certainly too many so-called “reformers,” want something for nothing, and want to skim your tax dollars and mine off the top.

  • Sparky

    Since I can't reply to Ivan, I'm replying to myself. Gods & goddesses forbid that I agree with something a conservative says. But now that I've recovered from my shock and grief and lost my lefty membership card…

    I really cannot buy your statements that it's impossible to tell who the best teachers are, and that if not for the unions it would be determined by who the evil principals like best and who kisses the most ass. Is that how you think things work in other companies and workplaces in this country? Apparently schools are the most petty, juvenile, incestuous workplaces in America – if that's all we can expect of them.

    Plenty of organizations do a great job at retaining and promoting high quality personnel – and most do it without unions protecting workers. I'm not saying that unions don't have a place – they do when they are preventing employers from seeking the worst possible pay and working conditions. But when their best answer is “it's just impossible to tell who is doing a good job, so we'll settle for mediocre results and pay”? I think that's ridiculous. Good organizations don't work that way.

    As for test scores, I think they must play a role in evaluation because we need something that is close to objective in the mix. I would include both the scores and the change in scores over time. But I'd also include a combination of reviews by other teachers, principals, and parents and students. That's how it works in other organizations. You are reviewed, whether formally or informally, by your peers, your superiors, and your clients. They don't all have to think you're the best thing since sliced bread, but if a majority doesn't like what you're doing, you're probably in the wrong place and will be asked to leave.