Legislative Commentary

Most lawmakers are back home while those involved in negotiations, and leaders like me, have spent much of these past four weeks at the Capitol.

Once the negotiating teams reach agreements that are ready to go before the full Senate and House, everyone will return to Olympia for the votes needed to bring our work to a close for the year.

There is progress on reforming the state’s education-funding system and figuring out the K-12 portion of the new state budget (which will be the largest part, so it takes priority).

But the negotiators for our Senate majority don’t foresee an agreement being reached in the few days left in the special legislative session. Therefore I expect the governor will have to call another special session, probably to begin as soon as this one ended Tuesday.

I appreciated the opportunity to spend an evening with the Spokane County chapter of the Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights.

From the Hirst ruling that drastically limits rural development to a new law that will help property owners evict squatters, there was much to discuss, even in a year that is so focused on education.

Special-session update

Leaders of the House majority and their political allies make it sound like lawmakers aren’t negotiating. The truth is that we are negotiating – just not in the way House Democrats want.

Negotiating teams from the Senate and House majority and minority caucuses have been meeting in a room in the House office building six times a week each of these past four weeks. They’re focusing on the reforms we need to make to the state’s education-funding system, and on the K-12 part of the state budget.

What House Democrats want is to have full-scale budget negotiations.

If they would put a balanced budget proposal on the table, to go with the balanced plan our Senate majority adopted way back on March 23, we could do that – even though the rest of the budget still hinges on the education part. But all they’ve done so far is approve a spending plan, without the $8 billion in additional revenue to cover that spending.

House majority leaders keep referring to the “Connecting Washington” transportation package we adopted in 2015 as though it supports the stance they’ve taken – which is to propose huge new tax increases but refuse to vote on them until after a budget is negotiated. They’re wrong. If anything, the Connecting Washington example undermines their position.

While the K-12 negotiators meet day after day, there is time for the House Democrats to rework their budget proposal into something that doesn’t rely on “ghost dollars” and instead keeps within the revenue expected from current tax rates. If they’re not going to make those ghost dollars real, by voting for their tax proposals, they should adopt a more credible budget approach.

Teachers lobby for more money at expense of taxpayers (and students)

Thursday morning some teachers came by the Capitol in hopes of lobbying the small number of lawmakers here about education funding. One of them teaches fifth grade at a nearby school. When asked how he could be making the rounds at the Capitol instead of being in his classroom, he said the union had paid for a substitute teacher.

Close, but not quite – and the truth isn’t better. The union didn’t pay for the substitute, using the dues it collects from teachers. Taxpayers made it possible for that fifth-grade teacher to lobby instead of teach, because the union arranged it.

In 2016-17, Washington taxpayers are spending a total of $6.39 million ($4.8 million in pay, plus benefits) on what the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction calls “Certificated on Leave.” It’s defined as “an individual on paid certificated leave from the district other than normal vacation leave or normal paid sick leave. Includes union representatives.”

In other words, taxpayer dollars pay for substitute teachers so regular teachers can leave their classrooms for union activities – which include lobbying to get more dollars out of taxpayers.

Complaints that the Legislature isn’t doing enough to provide for education lose some of their steam when it’s revealed that money which could be going into classrooms is going to subsidize union activities instead, and in the case of some school districts, paying for professional Olympia-based lobbyists.

It reminds me how our Senate majority’s budget leader says the approach to K-12 funding in our state, the system that was declared unconstitutional, is focused on “adult characteristics” instead of student needs.

The reforms in our Education Equality Act are student-centered, which helps explain why the union is conducting a misinformation campaign against it and our budget proposal.

Even in King County, Senate’s
 plan is better for property owners

Democrats in the House majority and Senate minority criticize how our Senate majority’s education-funding reforms, and the budget proposal which supports them, would keep property taxes as the primary source of support for schools.

They don’t like how our plan for a flat statewide school tax levy would mean a small increase for property owners in some King County school districts.

So they claim a property tax “is indiscriminate, hitting rich and poor people alike – and disproportionately hitting certain districts, especially in the Puget Sound region.”

What House Democrats don’t talk about is how, when all factors related to property taxes are considered, our plan is better for King County property owners than what they’re proposing.

Lift GMA limits to promote short rail, 
local economies? Governor says no

One of the bills I mentioned to the property-rights folks in Spokane earlier this month was legislation I co-sponsored that would help businesses locate along short-line railroads. An identical bill was introduced in the House.

It won overwhelming support across the Legislature, only to be derailed by the governor this week.

House Bill 1504 would have allowed certain counties and cities planning under the state Growth Management Act to permit natural-resource lands (including farmland, forest land and mineral-resource lands) for “freight rail dependent purposes” under certain conditions.

The House and Senate bills came from legislators in Clark County, who wanted to support economic development along a short line there.

They had strong bipartisan sponsorship from rural and urban lawmakers, but when it came time for the bills to have public hearings, a high-profile group that is staunchly committed to the GMA stood opposed.

Of the 340 bills passed by the Legislature during the regular session this year, just seven were vetoed entirely by the governor. He didn’t cite the opposition of environmentalists when vetoing HB 1504, but instead claimed the bill would “undermine our longstanding commitment to preserve working farms and promote our agricultural economy.”

As someone who understands our agricultural economy quite well, I disagree.

There is interest in seeing if we can get the Senate version (Senate Bill 5517) all the way through the Legislature this year (it had already passed the Senate), and in a way that keeps it clear of the governor’s veto pen.

Applications being accepted 
for next year’s Senate interns

The Legislative Intern Program is now taking applications for the 2018 session from college students who will be juniors or seniors next January.

The application deadline is Oct. 18, 2017, and you don’t have to be a political science major, just interested in public policy.