1. King County Council Members (and rivals for the open King County Executive job) Dow Constantine and Larry Phillips are both obsessed with a bill that’s in play in the state legislature that could provide funding for Metro buses. The bill, which is actually only tangentially about transit funding, was amended in the House on Friday, upping the pot of transit money by nearly 60 percent, to $55 million.
Hurrah, say Constantine and Phillips who, unbeknownst to each other, call me every other day about this bill. Both of them, in campaign mode I believe, are trying to show how invested they are in supporting transit for King County.
Yesterday, the Senate refused to concur with the House version, though, and now the bill has been thrown into conference, where both houses will send a couple of members to hash out the differences—including, finally deciding if the Metro funding will or will not be part of the legislation.
Here’s where this boring story about Metro funding and legislative procedure becomes hilarious. One of the negotiators (and likely one of the main advocates for the transit money) is Sen. Fred Jarrett (D-41, Mercer Island).
Dow and Larry’s hero. Fred Jarrett?
Why is that so damn funny? Because Jarrett is running for King County Executive too. Against Constantine and Phillips.
For Constantine and Phillips, their rival Jarrett is now in the position of becoming the hero on something they’ve spun as one of the most important issues facing the County.
UPDATE/FOOTNOTE: It’s worth pointing out that Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48, Eastside Seattle Suburbs)—who may jump into the King County Executive’s race himself (and also may be on the conference committee) is a bit of a loser on this bill. As we reported yesterday, a utility tax to fund human services, something Rep. Hunter was trying to put in the bill, got iced.
2. By a vote of 67-31, the state House signed off on the Senate version of the education reform bill last night (upgrading graduation requirements, strengthening accountability standards, and making early learning part of basic education). Finally, some of the education task force recommendations are headed to the Governor’s desk, waiting to be signed into law.
The vote followed a parade of speeches where detractors of the bill said the bill was a sham because it didn’t provide funding—”intentions do not bring funding,” Democratic Rep. Mike Sells (D-38, Everett) argued; and supporters of the bill said the bill provided a necessary blueprint for accountability—”we’re now accountable—the money we spend will be spent in a wise way,” Republican Rep. Skip Priest (R-30, Federal Way) countered. (P.S. Dumbest speech: Rep. Bob Hasegawa—D-11, S. Seattle—said he couldn’t support the bill because the opposing camps disagreed on it.)
My Hero. GOP Rep. Skip Priest.
I was persuaded by the proponents like Rep. Priest. Mandating serious education guidelines now—making public schools an accountable investment—means that when the there’s actually money in the budget to fight over, the case for increasing education dollars will be more compelling. The opponents’ argument that there’s no money for the upgraded system is a red herring—there’s no money for the failing system either. They might as well have been arguing that the state repeal existing education standards because the state can’t fund those.
3. However, I also thought one of the opponents of the bill, Rep. Gary Alexander (R-20, Olympia), raised the political question of the hour. He reminded everyone that Gov. Gregoire—who now says she supports the bill—recently came out firmly against the bill because there was no funding. “We’re in the same situation today,” Rep. Alexander complained.
He’s right. What changed for the Governor?
Tweet
I was fascinated by King County’s determination on SB 5433. They were vigorously lobbying to have the Senate concur with the House amendments to the bill while the county association and cities were working against that move and wanted the bill in conference. Why? Because as the bill moved from the House- what started as legislation that helped all local governemnts shrunk to one that only helped King County government. And King County wonders why they aren’t liked much in Olympia?
What changed for the Governor? Gee, she’s the “education Governor.” But she’s cutting $1 billion from K-12 education and $700 million or so from higher education while increasing tuition at 4 year state colleges 30% over the next two years.
She needed SOMETHING positive to say she was doing this year, or else she’s look like a bad guy. So she made an exception to her own rule that she won’t vote for unfunded mandates. In fact she went a step further, and made her support of the bill contingent upon it not having any specifics about implementation– that way, she can’t get sued for not following through, since she has absolutely no plan to increase revenue for public education.
Josh I totally respect your stand that this bill will make it easier to raise money for public education in the future. I think you could be right. But that’s not where Gregoire or many other state legislators are coming from in their support for this. They’re clearly well-intentioned. But they don’t have the courage of their convictions on almost anything that would require that they raise revenue.
Notme @1:
While the bill passed out of the House without some of the utility tax and other general government options for cities and counties that were in the original bill, it is not just a King County bill. The Simpson amendment provides an important revenue option – a voter approved $20 license tab fee- for transit agencies around the state.
This is important as transit agencies around the state, from Pierce to Spokane, are in deep trouble, with sales tax revenues diminishing by double digit percentages while ridership increases by double digits. Most Washingtonians would find it unacceptable to see massive cuts in bus service just as transit becomes a more and more critical part of our state’s transportation system.
Good stuff Josh. The argument that a blueprint for change should not be passed without funding is disingenuous. When I-728 and I-732 were on the ballot I don’t recall the WEA making that argument.
It’s sad day when lawmakers have to resort to sleight of hand to fund buses. There’s not much that is more basic to our economy than reasonably priced, environmentally sound transportation for our workforce.
Thanks for putting into words what I’d been thinking regarding the education bill — that it provides a well-reasoned blueprint for reform and improvement once we do have the money.
The funding isn’t there at the moment, no matter what the plan looks like … so it makes sense to not-fund a strong and solid future instead of not-funding another version of the old and insufficient ways.
The mix of yea and nay votes, in both houses, was absolutely fascinating.
@4: “The argument that a blueprint for change should not be passed without funding is disingenuous.”
True. But the argument that increased funding for K-12 education first requires a redefinition of basic education or reducing the power of unions to protect teacher job security is equally disingenuous. That is another lesson from the passage of I-728 and I-732.
Gregoire was likely enlightened by legal opinion on the results of upcoming lawsuits against the state for underfunding K-12 for 15-20 or more according to a 30 year old definition. Someone had to act…either the courts or the legislature.
Most people who wanted adequate funding for K-12 also wanted the reforms to the system. We need better teachers and this will help. Let those who are good at teaching have job security.
What changed for the Governor? Gee, she's the “education Governor.” But she's cutting $1 billion from K-12 education and $700 million or so from higher education while increasing tuition at 4 year state colleges 30% over the next two years.
She needed SOMETHING positive to say she was doing this year, or else she's look like a bad guy. So she made an exception to her own rule that she won't vote for unfunded mandates. In fact she went a step further, and made her support of the bill contingent upon it not having any specifics about implementation– that way, she can't get sued for not following through, since she has absolutely no plan to increase revenue for public education.
Josh I totally respect your stand that this bill will make it easier to raise money for public education in the future. I think you could be right. But that's not where Gregoire or many other state legislators are coming from in their support for this. They're clearly well-intentioned. But they don't have the courage of their convictions on almost anything that would require that they raise revenue.