One other effect of the initiative that should be considered, is that the requirement for voter approval of every tax and fee makes local governments more vulnerable to greater pressure from public employee unions.

The unions will want ballot propositions to pass, that benefit them. They will lobby the local elected officials to get provisions in the proposal or guarantees of benefits, before they will support the proposition. What chance does a tax proposition have of passage, if the local employee union campaigns against it? Not much. Opposition by the union would cut public confidence, and gives voters all the reason they need to deny funding. This added pressure could cause public employers to back down on important service delivery issues, to avoid a public battle with the union that could damage credibility and voter approval of funding.

Employee union claims don't even have to be true to damage public confidence and cause loss of a funding proposal. A few words at a board meeting, taken out of context and spread around in the news, may be all that it takes to put a local government on the defensive in the critical 2 weeks before the election date.

The voter approval requirement on routine funding issues, causes many kinds of problems. This is just another likely "unintended consequence" of this poorly written initiative. Bad law. Vote NO.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 23, 1999

Answers

Sorry db,

I again must disagree... if the PE unions start to "play" us, well, all KINDS of initiatives can be started, can't they?

I believe you over estimate the power of unions in general, and PE unions in particular. You write, "What chance does a tax proposition have of passage, if the local employee union campaigns against it? Not much."

The basis for my disagreement for that is indicated by the many other initiatives/referendums that PE and other unions campaigned against that passed overwhelmingly when they opposed them; or failed miserably when they supported them.

I-200, 676, 677, R-47, R 49 and now 695... all will pass, regardless of any union position. And I am convinced that the same will be the case for local funding requests. After all, if the unions start to screw with us, what do you think our votes will be? And if we constantly vote "no," what effects will that have on the union workers in particular?

It would not be in their best interests to act in the manner you discribe... at least if they want to keep working.

Finally, no law that increases the power of the electorate to determine their own course can be considered "bad" law. I am disappointed that so many of you fear the will of the people of this state, but in a very short time, that will is going to be expressed in a very, big, way.

"Don't tell me how bad it's going to be without car-tab revenues; explain how you defend the current tax. If a tax is unfair at its core, a free people have the right to repeal it."

We are a free people, db. And passing 695 will not make us any the less so.

Westin

"Americans in every region and in both political parties have been shaken by the betrayal of public trust ... and the dishonesty of the public officials."

SEN. Al Gore, Seattle Times, 1987

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 23, 1999.

db--looks like the best labor minds in the state disagree with you. Perhaps you could send your analysis to them. . .

Most recent first--

Laborers Local 276 $500 Communication Workers of America Local 7800 $500 Kitsap Co. Central Labor Council $1000 UFCS Local 1105 $500 Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust $3500 Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust $3500 Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust $3500 (yes three in a row) Washingto State Labor Council $5000 I.B.P.A.T District Council No. 5 $5000 International Union of Operating Engineers $5000 AFL-CIO $25000 Renton Carpenters Union 1797 $2000 WA State Council of City and County Employees $10000 Pierce County Central Labor Council AFL-CIO $1000 WEA-Riverside $500 L.I.U.N.A. Local No. 335 $500 Washington & Northern Idaho Dist. Council of Laborers $10000 Teamsters Local 760 $500 UFCW District Council #17 $1000 UFCW Local 1001 $500 United Food and Commercial Workers $10000 Drive Political Fund International Brotherhood of Teamsters $10000 Seattle Chapter Local 17 IFPTE $900 International Brotherhood of Teamsters local 589 $500 Laborers Intl of N. America local 238 $5000 Seattle Education Association $3000 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America $2000 King County Labor Council $2000 Wash. State Labor Council $15000 UF&CW Local 1439 $500 Pierce county Wash Buildings and Construction trades council $1000 Amalgamated Transit Union $10000 I.R.F.W Educational Committee $15000 WEA-Cascase Uniserv Council $1000 International Union of Operating Engineers Local 370 $1000 Labors Local 292 $1000 FTSGE Continuing Political Committee $2500 Public, Professional & Office Clerical Employees and Drivers Local 763 $500 Local 252 Public Information Fund $5000 Teamsters Local 556 $500 King 10 & 45 Firefighters $500 Internation Union of Operating Engineers Local 302 $5000 Snohomish County Labor Council $1000 Central Labor Council of Clark, Skamania, and West Klickitat Counties $695 Teamsters Local 599 $500 Street Pavers, Sewers, Watermain and Tunnel Workers Union 440 $2500 American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees $50000 Bellevue Education Association $500 Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO, O&D Fund $20000 Washington Federation of State Employes - AFPSME-AFL-CIO $1000 Washington Federation of State Employes - AFPSME-AFL-CIO $1000 (typo???) Washington Federation of State Employes - AFPSME-AFL-CIO $800 International Union of Operating Engineers Local, 612 $5000 Public School Employees (Auburn) $2000 Professional & Technical Engineers Local 17 $10000 King County Chapter Political Action Committee $900 Washington State Council of County and City Employees $5000 Pacific NW Dist. Council of Carpenters $10000 Washington State Labor Council $2000 WA State Federation of State Employees $45000 Washington State Council of Fire Fighters $25000 Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council $10000 Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO $5000 Piledrivers Local 2296 $1000 WA Federation of Teachers Cope $1000 ATU Special Holding Acct $5000 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 13/84 $5000 N.A.L.O.P. WA State Chapter $15000 Washington State COPPS $5000 PTSGE Continuing Political Committee $2500 Washington Teamsters Legislative League $500 Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO $5000 The Washington Federation of $5000 State Employees -- AFSCME, AFL-CIO AFSCME, AFL, CIO

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 23, 1999.

Ack. . .sorry 'bout the formatting.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 23, 1999.

Westin:

You missed the point. At the local level, employees of a local government can discredit a funding proposal by their opposition. Defeat of a tax proposal, is easier than approval. If the employees are opposed, it would be nearly impossible. The examples you cited about labor support or opposition regarding major state issues are not germane to this question.

Brad:

I think the public employee unions recognize that it is in their long term best interests if I-695 is defeated, and they are working to oppose it. What I am refering to is what happens if it is passed, and how they could use it for a short term tactical gain. They may not have to use an overt threat, but the possibility that labor issues will damage public trust will have an effect on the ability or willingness of public employers to stand up to union demands if the annual funding proposal may be defeated as a result. With an annual funding vote, concessions may look better than any public dispute that would discredit the organization.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 24, 1999.

db--"What I am refering to is what happens if it is passed, and how they could use it for a short term tactical gain."

Ahh, I see what you mean. . .sort of like threatening to endorse a representative or senator's opponent if they don't vote against something like NAFTA.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 24, 1999.

Brad:

No. More like a Representatives staff campaigning for his opposition in the election, with inside information and unsubstantiated suggestions of wrongdoing.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 24, 1999.

db--"No. More like a Representatives staff campaigning for his opposition in the election, with inside information and unsubstantiated suggestions of wrongdoing."

To be sure, you've a better analogy (I was making a different point). The point I was making is that they'll trade one set of tools for another.

Whether or not their "new tools" will be better than their "old tools". . .I've no idea. I can only look at union opposition to I-695 and think union management (oxymoron???) find their old tools more palatable.

Here's the question I have, (excluding the immediate tax cut. . .which I find meaningless over the long run) I-695 only changes governance with regards to *one* portion of government--tax increases. Is the ability to increase a tax the most important power a government has?

Put differently, no one on the no695 side has ever answered the following question: why is it too onerous to require the government to ask for the people's (AKA the poor saps who'll face legal consequences if they don't pay) permission before raising taxes?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 24, 1999.

Brad:

It becomes onerous when taken to the extremes, as was done in the language of 695. Many tax increases are already required to be put before the voters. Anything new, any property tax increase that exceeds 6% more than the prior year tax, etc. Increases of more than the IPD require a super majority of the legislative body to find that a substantial need exists, and that only lets then increase to the 6% increase limit. Even Prop 13 in California has an inflation factor allowed without a vote, to take care of some of the increasing cost of providing the same level of service. 695 has nothing like that.

So why is it a problem to ask the voters? Because the voters have been asked, and approved the existing method of maintaining a level of service. The authorization to levy taxes within specific limits was approved by the existing policical processes, approved by the people. When they approve a lid lift proposition, for example, they lift the statutory lid for one year and reimpose the statutory processes that allow limited tax increases in subsequent years. That maintains the level of service they authorized.

The real issue is that if an annual vote is needed to reconfirm the revenue of a local government each year, that is needed to maintain the level of service planned for and funded over several years, it damages the processes and planning of local government. The budget may be developed in August and September, but the revenue to fund it will not be confirmed until the November election results are known. Planning will be much more difficult beyond the current budget year. Staffing decisions are made with the expectation on both sides that some level of security exists regarding the funding of the position.

And then you need to consider that 695 did not limit itself to tax increases, as is the case in Colorado. It includes any fee, or monetary charge by government. So you get the prospect of a vote to increase the price of school lunches, or a vote to increase the rent of public housing, or a vote to increase the fee for a copy of a document. These may be bundled together, for a periodic inflation adjustment; like "Shall all fees and monetary charges by the XYZ School District be increased by 10%, at the rate of 2 1/2% in each of the next 4 years?" Personally, I think that part of the initiative is the most stupid provision. These kind of decisions are what a school board is elected for. Or a city council, or a library board.

Finally, the big issue of what it means in the case of specific taxes. Monte Behham is one of the co-chairmen, and he expects a kind of Prop 13 freeze of property values; based on an earlier post he made on this forum. Where he gets that idea, I don't know. It is not in the initiative. I wrote a series of questions about the voter approval requirement, and found no consistency in how it was expected to work. We really don't know until a judge rules on some basic issues.

These are a few reasons the requirement is onerous, as it is expanded to the extremes if 695 were approved. Read some of the posts by Bob Dick, for a more specific explanation of some of the complexities. I need to give up the computer so my daughter can do her homework.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 24, 1999.

db--"issue is that if an annual vote is needed to reconfirm the revenue of a local government each year, that is needed to maintain the level of service planned for and funded over several years, it damages the processes and planning of local government. The budget may be developed in August and September, but the revenue to fund it will not be confirmed until the November election results are known. Planning will be much more difficult beyond the current budget year. Staffing decisions are made with the expectation on both sides that some level of security exists regarding the funding of the position."

I already understood all this. . .so what. I still don't find it unreasonable when you consider the government has (effectively) a monopoly and, unlike most monopolies, can threaten me with legal action if I don't pay for services I never *use*.

"And then you need to consider that 695 did not limit itself to tax increases, as is the case in Colorado. It includes any fee, or monetary charge by government. So you get the prospect of a vote to increase the price of school lunches, or a vote to increase the rent of public housing, or a vote to increase the fee for a copy of a document. These may be bundled together, for a periodic inflation adjustment; like "Shall all fees and monetary charges by the XYZ School District be increased by 10%, at the rate of 2 1/2% in each of the next 4 years?" Personally, I think that part of the initiative is the most stupid provision. These kind of decisions are what a school board is elected for. Or a city council, or a library board."

I've wondered why they put this in I-695 as well (personally I would've put a ceiling on this provision--only require votes on fee increases generating greater than ____M$$$ in revenue). Given the common perceptions about the legislature's ability to find "weasel room" in laws, I presume they felt forced to include this provision lest *everything* be treated as a fee in the future.

Personally, if this provision proves unworkable, I expect it to be the first part tossed out after the requisite 2-year waiting period.

It comes down to what I've said before, it's often better to have part of what you want than *none* of what you want.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 24, 1999.

Brad:

It has been clear for some time that you are willing to overlook the faults in 695, and accept the progam cuts in the hope they will be in service areas you personally never use. I am not, and already voted NO. Even if you are right, and the program cuts will not effect you personally, they will still effect many in this state. If 695 is approved, it will be a victory of self-centered self-interest. That seems to be the primary and recurrent theme in most of the pro posts.

I am not a liberal. I never voted for Clinton or Locke. But I still believe representative democracy is better than what 695 would give us.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 24, 1999.

db--"It has been clear for some time that you are willing to overlook the faults in 695, and accept the progam cuts in the hope they will be in service areas you personally never use. I am not, and already voted NO. Even if you are right, and the program cuts will not effect you personally, they will still effect many in this state. If 695 is approved, it will be a victory of self-centered self-interest. That seems to be the primary and recurrent theme in most of the pro posts. I am not a liberal. I never voted for Clinton or Locke. But I still believe representative democracy is better than what 695 would give us."

db, this is yet another strawman. you misstated my position when you think i "hope the cuts don't affect me" (go look and see if i've ever said this). it's more that i'm willing to live with the consequences of the cuts that presumably could affect me. are others willing as well? we'll find out in 9 days.

finally, why bother telling me you're not a liberal and you didn't vote for Locke or Clinton? i've not assumed you were liberal or conservative. why would you presume to think i did?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 25, 1999.

Brad: On the "liberal" comment, I may have you confused with someone else. About being impacted by the cuts, I got that from the following:

"I already understood all this. . .so what. I still don't find it unreasonable when you consider the government has (effectively) a monopoly and, unlike most monopolies, can threaten me with legal action if I don't pay for services I never *use*."

From the "services I never use" comment, I infer that much of government is unimportant to you personally as long as you don't "use" it. Perhaps the conclusion was unjust. If so, I apologize.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 25, 1999.

d

I'm not concerned with where the cuts will come from. If they come from fire and police but not from the pols special projects then the people of this state will see what these people are truely about.

If the people then don't care, we're screwed. Because the important things will be forever forsaken.

Ed - surfing for mustang parts. well not right now but in a few minutes

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 25, 1999.