I serve as a commissioner for a small public hospital district. I've been told by legal counsel that we (the hospital district) will have to hold an election if we desire to raise our room rates $10 to help offset increasing costs. When I called the county auditor to inquire about the cost of asking for voter approval via an election, his reponse was, it will cost the small hospital district between $40,000 and $230,000 to run the election depending upon how many other issues are on the ballot!!! We are barely breaking even in today's troubled health care arena. We (the taxpayers of the district) can not afford to run elections nor can we afford to not keep up with our rising costs and increasing deductions in revenue being paid by Medicare and Insurance companies.

My question: Can someone (beyound a shadow of doubt) show me where in I-695 the above statements are clearly erroneus.

Thank you for your response to this very troubling question. I've tried calling several phone #s to talk to someone about this, all I get are recorded messages seeking help or $ for the campaign, so I would also like a phone # for a person knowledgable about my question.

Dennis

-- Dennis Dinkla (ddinkla@aol.com), October 12, 1999

Answers

Dennis writes:

"My question: Can someone (beyound a shadow of doubt) show me where in I-695 the above statements are clearly erroneus."

There is no error, Dennis. If you want to raise the price of a meal in the hospital cafeteria it'll probably have to go before a public vote.

But more importantly, do you know that 695 requires a public vote on any increase in the total amount of tax money collected by a special district? That means that if you have new construction or an increase in property values in your district, you have to have a vote to be allowed to keep the property tax rate the same.

Check out this URL: http://www.federalwayfire.org/levy.htm

This special district is having to place a measure on the ballot so that they can continue to collect the same rate that they already collect. This is what the future will look like if 695 passes. Every single level of government will have to ask their voters every year if it's okay to collect the same amount of money the voters have already told them it's okay to collect.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 12, 1999.

BB, as usual, is being something less then disingenuous.

Adding a fee question to an already scheduled election that covers your district will result in a minimal cost at best... unless the anti's are prepared to tell us that the cost of counting a punched hole on an election ballot for a "small public hospital district" will be tens of thousands?

Westin

"A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.

Can't your hospital cut costs anywhere first before screwing the taxpayers a little harder? A good place to start would be to contract out all of your auxillary services. Organizations in the real world do this all of the time and with good results.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 12, 1999.

If it costs the government $40,000 to add one issue to an existing election, we ought to take 20% away from them rather than 2%, in hopes that they can learn to be more frugal if they have less of our money to play with.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Good question Dennis! According to the way the initiative is written that is exactly what you will have to do. Of course the psychos on this forum just continually ask where else you can cut costs, but you know, and I know, that most small districts, and local governments, are cut to the bone already. Unfortunately, Dennis, this initiative was not written with the best interests of the people of the great state of Washington in mind. It was written the way it was only to maximize it's PR punch. And who will pay for the selfishness of this campaign? It sounds like you certainly will. I know I will in a loss of public services. As far as a phone # is concerned, I don't have much help for you. No one knows how the legal aspects of this initiative will fall, so no one has any real concrete answers. Your county legal service might be of some help though.

-- Dave K. (dpk9030@hotmail.com), October 12, 1999.

Speaking of "psychos on this forum," it's nice to finally meet one.... Dave.

Westin

"The Pacific Yew can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical, taxol, which offers some promise of curing certain forms of lung, breast and ovarian cancer in patients who would otherwise quickly die. It seems an easy choice -- sacrifice the tree for a human life -- until one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated."

Al Gore "Earth in the Balance"

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.

"Your county legal service might be of some help though. " Here's another potential place we could take the cuts to avoid disruption of police and fire services.

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Dave--"Good question Dennis! According to the way the initiative is written that is exactly what you will have to do. Of course the psychos on this forum just continually ask where else you can cut costs, but you know, and I know, that most small districts, and local governments, are cut to the bone already. Unfortunately, Dennis, this initiative was not written with the best interests of the people of the great state of Washington in mind. It was written the way it was only to maximize it's PR punch. And who will pay for the selfishness of this campaign? It sounds like you certainly will. I know I will in a loss of public services. As far as a phone # is concerned, I don't have much help for you. No one knows how the legal aspects of this initiative will fall, so no one has any real concrete answers. Your county legal service might be of some help though."

I have a few questions. You say this initiative is "not written with the best interests of the people in mind." I'm curious what you think an initiative like I-695 might look like if it had "the best interests of the people in mind."

"It was written the way it was to satisfy the PR punch."

You meant to say it was written that way because the authors understood if they only cut the tabs fee then the legislature would immediately turn around and create another method to collect the lost revenue. If your goal is to reduce the size and influence of government, it would only make sense to anticipate the ways the legislature would try to weasel out of the intent of the initiative.

As I wrote the above, it occurs to me that the sniveling about the fees portion of the initiative means the initiative was well-crafted indeed. Given the legislature's response to I-601--"work around" the budget cap issues, it's reasonable to think the authors understood the legislature might try and call *everything* a user fee and thus, not subject to an I-695 that didn't mention user fees.

"Who will pay for the selfishness of this campaign?"

This sentence particularly makes me wanna puke.

If the state government had acted on concerns about the MVET, it's reasonable to say I-695 would be a minor issue. It reminds me of some "advice" an Army Major once gave me, "either you fix it or I will."

If you're interested in a discussion of selfishness, you should just take a quick look at the list of donors to the no695 campaign. When you look at the list and see a band of Mother Teresa's giving alms to the poor, you should understand that some people see a pack of overweight Rottweilers fiercely guarding the food bowl taken from its original owner. From this perspective, who's now the selfish one?

Lastly, although I-695 is not a perfect initiative, it's still the best solution available in recent memory to people who believe in limited the size and influence of government.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.

ya brad, the league of jewish mothers sure is a frothing pack of rotweilers guarding their food. you will not win that argument. the group opposing 695 is too dissimilar. And yes hospitals and schools will be hurt indirectly. If you only have one vote per year, the EFFICIENT way, everyone is in competition for precious votes. We all know that people will not pass every tax increase they come across, and no one will take the time to research every one. So, anyone asking for more money must compete for votes. Using time and sparse resources doing so.

-- mark (mark@iswell.com), October 12, 1999.

--Brad,

Are sure you're not a Libertarian? The zest in your hatred of government suggests that, or something worse (American Heritage, or the Taxpayers party). You have so little faith in the ability of our government to do "the right thing" that you prefer it hogtied, so that it can't do anything. You see no problem pre-empting fee increases (not taxes mind you). You would rather see programs like libraries and hospitals die a slow death, because they can't afford to hold the elections needed to request fee increases, when perhaps all they are trying to do is cover costs. Of course in places like public hospitals, the only way to "cut costs" often times will be to turn away those without insurance. Presumably you find no problem with this, since it is just good buisiness practice, and a more prudent way to run a budget. The fact that the working poor get screwed is of *no* concern to you, because like any good libertarian, you've already got yours, and to hell with all of the lazy bastards out there who can't afford basic services.

If you aren't a libertarian, you sure have borrowed a lot of their philosophy.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 13, 1999.

Westin writes:

"BB, as usual, is being something less then disingenuous. Adding a fee question to an already scheduled election that covers your district will result in a minimal cost at best... unless the anti's are prepared to tell us that the cost of counting a punched hole on an election ballot for a "small public hospital district" will be tens of thousands?"

Interesting. Especially considering I never even said anything about election costs.

Let's run down what I actually did say, shall we? Seeing how you say I'm being disingenuous and all.

"There is no error, Dennis. If you want to raise the price of a meal in the hospital cafeteria it'll probably have to go before a public vote."

This is, of course, true. Any fee increase will have to be voted on. Which brings up an interesting point. In a public hospital district, would charges for drugs be considered a fee? If drug companies raise prices, would public hospitals have to ask the public if it's okay to buy these drugs at market prices?

"But more importantly, do you know that 695 requires a public vote on any increase in the total amount of tax money collected by a special district? That means that if you have new construction or an increase in property values in your district, you have to have a vote to be allowed to keep the property tax rate the same."

Again, this is true. 695 requires a public vote whenever the total amount of tax money collected by a particular level of government increases.

"This special district is having to place a measure on the ballot so that they can continue to collect the same rate that they already collect. This is what the future will look like if 695 passes. Every single level of government will have to ask their voters every year if it's okay to collect the same amount of money the voters have already told them it's okay to collect."

And finally, this is true. There will be no such thing as multi-year funding after 695, considering the total AV of just about everywhere always goes up, meaning the total amount of money collected goes up, meaning that the rate of taxation people have already approved will need to be approved yet again.

Hmph. Considering everything I posted was true, how exactly was I being disingenuous?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

"So, anyone asking for more money must compete for votes. Using time and sparse resources doing so. "

Damn-

Someone who wants somebody else's money considers it too demeaning, expensive, and time consuming, to ask the owners if it's OK. Answer this Mark, does the government belong to the people, or do the people belong to the government?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 13, 1999.

mark--"ya brad, the league of jewish mothers sure is a frothing pack of rotweilers guarding their food. you will not win that argument. the group opposing 695 is too dissimilar. And yes hospitals and schools will be hurt indirectly. If you only have one vote per year, the EFFICIENT way, everyone is in competition for precious votes. We all know that people will not pass every tax increase they come across, and no one will take the time to research every one. So, anyone asking for more money must compete for votes. Using time and sparse resources doing so."

Yawn. . .this might be interesting if you actually picked a group that had donated money to the no695 campaign.

"The group opposing I-695 is too dissimilar."

Did you actually look at the donors to the no campaign?

The vast majority of them depend on public funds (directly or indirectly) for their revenue. Public sector unions, construction companies, and civil engineering construction firms have provided a huge portion of the donations to the no695 campaign. To paraphrase a Chinese saying, they're guarding their own rice bowl.

As far as hospitals and schools competing against each other for votes, I agree there's the potential for this to occur. There are two ways to look at this situation--"what a catastrophe, I-695 created competition in the public sector!!!" or "cool, I-695created competition in the public sector."

As you might remember, it's quite similar to the idea of the glass still being 98% full.

"time and sparse resources to do so"

If you consider the time spent lobbying the appropriate governing body for funding, one wonders how much extra time (if any) it will actually take.

BTW, since you apparently had trouble with the guarding dog analogy, I used an analogy that should be more appropriate for someone with an Hong Kong based email address. . .oh wait, I get it, you're making (yawn) a joke out of my last name.

Since I've found this amusing, I'll guess this is either 40 oz (unlikely given the comprehensible prose) or a particularly dense member of seattle.politics (Ze end is nier).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.

--Brad-- "I have a few questions. You say this initiative is 'not written with the best interests of the people in mind.' I'm curious what you think an initiative like I-695 might look like if it had 'the best interests of the people in mind.'".

If the only humans that you quantify as "people" are those with expensive cars, then I would say it's perfect, leave it as it is. why would you ever want to assist the unemployed, the sick, or the elderly? If they don't have the relatives to provide for them, then screw-em. They are leaches growing fat at the publics expense. Libraries? Screw- em. If you don't have the money to buy books, you don't deserve to read. Animal control, the list is endless of the little value added (not to you) services that will likely never be able to afford a special fee raising election, and are likely to just grow more and more ineffectual, or be forced to find funding via the general fund, putting *fully* into the control of the whim of the legislature.

Yes Brad, this is just Fear Mongering on my part. Not that you care. As long as you can say *YES* we have reigned evil government in, Screw *EVERYBODY* who uses government services *except* *me*, because in the end, that's what it amounts to. You don't care for anyone or anythings welfare except your own, and since you know how you are getting to work, and that you are not unemployed, and that you've got your shotgun to keep stray dogs off your land.

There, how was that for a vitriolic response? (Since I'm sure "Spellmeister" has nothing constructive to add beyond gleefully pointing out gramatical and spelling errors, I'd like to note that I actually looked up "vitriolic" before attempting to spell it.)

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 13, 1999.

concerned WA parent--"Are sure you're not a Libertarian? The zest in your hatred of government suggests that, or something worse (American Heritage, or the Taxpayers party). You have so little faith in the ability of our government to do "the right thing" that you prefer it hogtied, so that it can't do anything. You see no problem pre-empting fee increases (not taxes mind you). You would rather see programs like libraries and hospitals die a slow death, because they can't afford to hold the elections needed to request fee increases, when perhaps all they are trying to do is cover costs. Of course in places like public hospitals, the only way to "cut costs" often times will be to turn away those without insurance. Presumably you find no problem with this, since it is just good buisiness practice, and a more prudent way to run a budget. The fact that the working poor get screwed is of *no* concern to you, because like any good libertarian, you've already got yours, and to hell with all of the lazy bastards out there who can't afford basic services."

This is gonna sound harsh, but do you think before you post?

Am I sure I'm not a Libertarian? Let me check (pause), yeah I'm not a Libertarian. In case you're interested, I'm not a Republican, Democrat, Reform, Green, Anarchist, Taxpayer's. . .I could go on but you get the picture.

You say I've so little faith in the government that I'd prefer it hogtied and unable to do anything. While I do believe the "government that governs least governs best," I never have nor would advocate the abolition of government.

You're correct I see no problem pre-empting fee increases. Did it ever occur to you to ask me why?

Let me give you a hint, it's not because I think they're unnecessary nor would I like to see "libraries and hospitals die a slow death."

I guess it's just easier to use your preconceptions about people who believe in smaller government to stereotype me as someone who wants to destroy government (my words not yours). Take a look at my posts, I could be wrong but I don't think you'll find an instance where I denigrate government employees or a particular agency. IIRC, the closest thing you could find is the reference to a "pack of rottweilers guarding the foodbowl." You can call that hateful if you'd like, but a casual observer would understand its accuracy.

"The fact that the working poor get screwed is of *no* concern to you, because like any good libertarian, you've already got yours, and to hell with all the lazy bastards out there who can't afford basic services."

Disregarding the obviously inflammatory nature of this remark, I have two questions--what's a basic service and who should provide basic services?

I have no idea of the answer to the first question. It's probably different things to different people.

Let me give you a little hint about where I stand on the second question, I'm typing this on an OS that I downloaded and installed for free. With the exception of my browser (admittedly a big exception), every piece of software on my machine is written, maintained, and supported by the community of people who use the software.

As you work in software, you'll probably want to ask if this model scales. Quite frankly, I don't know. That being said, I think Habitat for Humanity will help answer this question for us within the next 5-10 years.

After saying the above, I'd like to make it clear that I don't think that community efforts can provide all basic services. Using two obvious examples, I can't see how it would work for roads or national defense.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.

brad, i suggest you check the list before you claim a group doesn't oppose 695. I think nat'l council of jewish women is close enough especially when league of women voters is right below them on the list. I would hope you could put one and one together. Oh I forgot, you are about taking things apart. As far as who donates money to the campaign, i would love to know how you know who has & who hasn't. does it matter if you donate money to the campaign or just oppose it?

-- informed washington resident (informed@iswell.com), October 13, 1999.

"There, how was that for a vitriolic response? (Since I'm sure "Spellmeister" has nothing constructive to add beyond gleefully pointing out gramatical and spelling errors, I'd like to note that I actually looked up "vitriolic" before attempting to spell it.) " The Spellmeister salutes your efforts at self- improvement. However grammatical has two "m"s.

-- The Spellmeister (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 13, 1999.

informed washington voter--"i suggest you check the list before you claim a group doesn't oppose 695. I think nat'l council of jewish women is close enough especially when league of women voters is right below them on the list. I would hope you could put one and one ogether. Oh I forgot, you are about taking things apart. As far as who donates money to the campaign, i would love to know how you know who has & who hasn't. does it matter if you donate money to the campaign or just oppose it?"

"does it matter if you donate money to the campaign or just oppose it?"

Consider the following scenarios:

your boss comes in and gives you an attaboy for a job well done.

your boss comes in and gives you an attaboy for a job well done as well as a 5% out of cycle raise.

All other things being equal, which action indicates the company considers you a valued employee? Put more crudely, money talks and bulls*** walks.

"I would love to know how you know who donates money and who hasn't"

I find this statement ironic coming from an "informed washington voter."

It's all public information. Personally, I would like to tell you where to find it. Unfortunately, I won't because I think the disclosure would make it easier for the agents employed by the trilateral commission (the real people opposing I-695) track me down.

"I forgot, you are about taking things apart."

As you read my response, I'd ask you to think about the paradoxical relationship between creation and destruction.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.

Such anger Brad, I'm shocked. Did I say your campaign was selfish? I'm sorry, I meant disgustingly pathetically selfish. The only people voting for this initiative are the ones looking at their own pocket book and don't give a damn about the communities they live in. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread about cutting county legal service. Yeah, good idea and open the local government up to every lawsuit happy lawyer in the region. That'll save us money. Face it, when a municpality spends 60% of it's budget on police, fire, and EMS services, as we do here in Spokane, that is what will be cut. Period. That is just the cold hard facts.

Brad writes "I have a few questions. You say this initiative is "not written with the best interests of the people in mind." I'm curious what you think an initiative like I-695 might look like if it had "the best interests of the people in mind."

Well, for one it would phase in the financial hit over the course of two or three years, instead on an instant half billion dollar hit to the budget, for another, it would have left out the requirement to vote on every minute little fee increase. What an incredible waste of money and time that would be. Have a nice day.

-- Dave K. (dpk9030@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

Dave-

"Did I say your campaign was selfish? I'm sorry, I meant disgustingly pathetically selfish. " As opposed to the pro-MVET people who are selfish with other peoples money? If you want the Mother Theresa award, Dave, use YOUR OWN money. Otherwise you're just saying involuntary servitude is OK, as long as it's for something I believe in. You liberals lost the moral high ground when you continued to make excuses for the First Delinquent when he got caught with his pants down (or at least with the DNA evidence of having had his pants down). Don't lecture me on political correctness anymore, it's all political and no correctness. Have a nice day.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

All the 'terrible' losses. Oh woe is me!!

There are MANY positions in EVERY department that serve no purpose but waste a lot of resources.

For example the C.I.O. Don't know what a CIO is? CIO's are uniformed cops who carry cell phones and nightsticks and drive around in marked vans. They are the much needed 'Community Information Officers' They cruise the streets ready to 'instantly' provide information to whoever needs it.

How about the cops they take off of normal duty to do the job of the 'flagpersons' at road construction sites? They don't actually 'replace' the flagwavers, but enhance them. So we have a double-waste...two crews of flagwavers(so they can rest occasionally from their backbreaking labors)and a cop to point at the cars too!!!

There is probably a committee for each one of these locations to select who get's the terrible job of wearing the orange vests

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

Hey everybody! All this mudslinging is getting on the bandwidth walls! Let's get back to the original issue... prioritize the hospital's fundings first. I remember the last time I was in the hospital and it cost me $5.00 for two asprin! Come on!!

Yes, people will have to vote on any tax or fee increase. Period. Prioritize first, ask for votes later. Next?

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

"We (the taxpayers of the district) can not afford to run elections nor can we afford to not keep up with our rising costs and increasing deductions in revenue being paid by Medicare and Insurance companies. " Oh this is great! Medicare sticks it to you with a rate cut, that's OK. An insurance company sticks it to you with a rate cut. That's OK. The taxpayer wants to keep more of their money, the SKY IS FALLING. Well that's tough. I don't see why I should subsidize YOU because you don't stand up to insurance companies and medicare.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.