Isn't a non-essential service kind of like 'date-rape'? We got something we didn't want, didn't need and actually said NO to??

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999

Answers

who defines "essential service". talk about an attorney's dream.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 17, 1999.

Frankly, the definition of essential services will come from voters who will decide what an essential service is. If they chose not to fund it, essentially, it wasn't essential. Cool huh?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Should an election ballot be set up such that each service, essential or not, is listed as a separate line item that people can vote for or against?

Should one vote fund that service for perpituity? until the next election? Some other set of years?

If a service needs to be increased we should expect to be able to vote on it. What about if a service could be decreased? Should we expect the tax to be rebated automatically?

Assuming labor providing the service is under union contract, should the contract be set only for the duration of the tax?

-- g_ma2000 (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

It matters not, how it winds up on the ballot. Try reading this again.

The definition of essential services will come from voters who will decide what an essential service is. If they chose not to fund it, essentially, it wasn't essential.

It does not matter if it is for 1 year, 10 years or for forever. THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE TO FUND OR NOT TO FUND! If they decide NOT TO FUND, then it wasn't essential.

If you know so much about Labor Contracts, then you know there is usually a clause regarding loss of funding, and how it was agreed to by management and Labor to deal with said loss.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

marsha,

A vote is not needed if the budget shows no increase in public taxes right. What you are saying is that voters should put every thing on the budget to a vote. The council could vote to drop the county pool from their budget, and pay for another hundred picnic tables for the parks. there would be no increase in taxes, and no public vote. Some would say that the service of providing a pool is more important than eating on a table. Others would have the opposite oppinion. Which brings us to my question, who defines essential services?

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 17, 1999.

Me!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

I-695 did away with the concept of permanent funding. Everything will get on the ballot on a regular basis if the courts let that stand. What I think g_ma2000 is asking is how they are put on the ballot, and that is worth some discussion.

Special purpose district issues are already limited to that specific service, but cities and counties are general purpose governments that can "package" funding proposals with the intent to make them attractive to voters. Something for everyone, and nice-to-have items tied to (I don't like the word) "essential" services. Several on the forum have complained that issues that are unlikely be approved by the voters are not on the ballot, but those that are likely to be supported are. Many items get lumped together as general government services, that on a case-by-case basis would have trouble at the polls. I don't think either 695 or Son of 695 will change that. They may cause cities and counties to go to the voters more often, but those governments will still package the issues as attractively as they can.

I am not in favor of management by initiative or direct democracy, and we are headed in that direction if some of thes new proposals actually get proposed. That is one of the issues in the challenges to 695. Did it remove from elected officials some of the authority of their office that was granted by the constitution? Some here may say, "Right, that is just what we wanted!"; but the problem is that the initiative can't change the constitution. A judge will be reviewing all that soon, and the Supreme Court should get the case and decide it before the end of June.

Some things we ought to do, are not very popular. Some are complicated, and hard to present clearly in a short ballot title. Some are mandates that local governments don't have any choice about, but are still expensive and need funding. Some benefit a minority of the population more than the majority, and if everyone voted their self interest they would not get funded (senior services, teen programs, ADA programs, etc.) Some things have been sheltered from the self-interest of voters, by not asking is they should be funded. Some of that may change, but I am not sure that would be a good change if voters continue to place their self interest above the common good.

Locally, communities tend to support programs that benefit others in their community, even if they don't benefit directly. If I don't have children in the schools, my friends and neighbors still do, and the community benefits from a good school system. On county and state wide issues people seem more willing to look only at the personal benefits, and not the community interests. Alienation. They don't feel a part of the larger community; and can just ignore those who will be hurt, because they were just one vote in making the decision, so they were not really responsible. If we manage by initiative, every vote does matter and every voter is responsible. It is a shift in thinking that I don't believe most voters have made, or want to make.

My conclusion is, we should not expect or demand that each program be voted on individually. Contrary the what Marsha wrote (sorry about that), I don't believe a voter decision will make something essential or non-essential. Almost everything is actually non-essential, but of differing levels of urgency and necessity in maintaining a civilized society; and in most cases the choices are between marginal adjustments in the funding of different services. [add (or cut) two police, or add (or cut) 4 staff to work with teen programs] Subjective judgements, every one. Neither choice is "essential", in the sense it has been used by many politicians and others recently.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 17, 1999.

d,

Glad to see you've joined a new thread. Of course you are right to a large extent. I base my opinion on the following miriam webster's definition.

of the utmost importance : BASIC, INDISPENSABLE, NECESSARY

If any increase is brought to voters, and it is approved, I would make the assumption that the majority felt is was essential. I would not think they would approve of an increase in taxes for something they considered NON essential. They would be defining essential on an individual basis, and as a collective majority, defining essential. IMHO.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Marsha:

Just two examples. The voters approved Sound Transit. The voters rejected the King County Medic One levy in 1997 (60% required, about 56% yes) I would argue that Sound Transit is not "of the utmost importance", and the Medic One system is. Both were selected for Craig.

The Medic One issue is exceptional. It was not the usual "maintain or marginal increase in service" proposal. It was a funding issue that would either continue the service or unfund it entirely. That comes as near to essential as anything, although only 2 counties in the state offer the service at all. The voters either didn't understand that, misunderstood the ballot title, or didn't believe the politicians would actually cut the service if their was no money. In fact, a second vote 4 months later passed at about 80% after media attention made the issue clearer to everyone. The county agreed to borrow money an the strength of that vote, to get through the unfunded year (1998)which is being paid back with interest in the funded years (1999 - 2001).

Craig and I discussed this at length, and we disagree about the nature of the Medic One service. For whatever reasons, the legislature created the EMS levy and service as an optional additional service that is not required of any level of government. Cities and fire districts generally provide the basic service as part of their charge, but it is actually not required and some (eastern Washington mostly) respond only to fires. While an EMS service is popular and needed, it is not legally required or essential. If people want it, they should fund it; and the funding creates the legal requirement to provide the service.

Future funding of the King County EMS (Medic One) system will be decided in 2001. My personal preference is to pass a permanent funding authorization of UP TO about 30 cents/$1000. That requires a 60% approval vote. Permanent is not really possible under 695, but that would establish the EMS service as a permanent responsibility of the county with a secure basic funding source. In fact, the county would need to go back to the voters annually or at least every 2 years to catch-up with inflation and the growth in population since the levy amount can not be increased without voter approval. These "catch-up" votes would be lid lifts, and require a 50% approval. They would also avoid the all-or-nothing, gun-to-the-head type vote that occured in 1997. Voters could actually vote no, if the proposed increase was not justified, and still have an EMS system the next year - just a reduced level-of-service.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 18, 1999.

d,

All the interesting facts and opinions aside, it seems you are saying elections are more or less a crap shoot, correct? Not any type of indication as to essential or non essential?

So when the EMS levy failed the first time, voters didn't understand, misunderstood the ballot, or didn't believe the politicians. Later, when it passed with an 80% majority, you don't think that it was loud and clear that voters determined it to be essential? Hmmmmm....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 18, 1999.

Marsha:

You had to be here to see it. Not much of a campaign for it, and a lot of other issues that got the media attention. Some misinformation did get out. We are still hearing from those like Craig who think the county could or should just pay for EMS, and if they run short put something else on the ballot. It was proposed in November of 1997 at 29 cents, which was a 4 cent increase. Some understood that was in addition to the existing 25, others thought it should have been proposed as two issues (25 + 4), still others thought a no vote meant it would continue at 25 cents. That happens when you have a lot of issues, and the media does not get the information out.

Not exactly a crap shoot. It still got a majority the first time. Timing is important. Some effort at getting the message out is important. Media attention is important. Still, good things that should pass can fail. Things that should fail, pass. 695 comes to mind.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 18, 1999.

"We are still hearing from those like Craig who think the county could or should just pay for EMS, and if they run short put something else on the ballot."

Yeah, and despite A LOT OF PEOPLE saying this (including city and county council members in King County) nobody listened. It should come as no surprise that the groundswell for I-695 caught these same people napping too. They have listened to each other for so long that they've grown deaf to the voices of the common voters. The voters seem to be rectifying that by talking louder recently. It's a habit that I think the anointed ones might have to get used to. Hope so, anyway.

Right now the apologists for the system like D here are saying, " If you'll just go to all the local meetings, we'll give you your say." I've been to the local meetings, agendas already set and decided upon by over-the-back-fence agreements by the politicians and the special interests. You are given your two minutes at the microphone while the voting members, the only ones with any real power at the meeting, read the paper and scratch their butts, then vote the way they've already agreed to vote.

So I personally thing that Eyman has a better way. When I sign an initiative petition I KNOW they are going to have to pay attention, because every one that comes along MAY become law. Every opponent of 695 is now saying, yeah, the MVET wasn't right, and we should have done something about it before I-695 came along. They're right, they should have, but they didn't WANT to listen to the people, and there's not one of them who, if the MVET were back, would do a DAMN thing about it for any reason BUT to pre-empt 695.

So let's keep those initiatives coming, lots of initiatives, good deals and bad deals can all be sorted out at democracy's marketplace of ideas...... the ballot box

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 19, 1999.

Over the last 25 years, My husband and I have traveled regularly to visit family in Boise. We always hear the same comments. "Boise is growing too fast". "Traffic is getting terrible".

We found this odd, since we were always able to navigate the city easily, any time of day. The only delays we ever experienced, were due to road construction, when we had to slow down, (never actually having to stop).

Is it possible the politicians in Idaho know something Washington politicians don't? Last I heard, Boise's growth was outpacing Seattle, and they are busily building or expanding roads....

As long as we may be stuck with sound transit, we may as well expand it. Run it under Puget Sound to Bainbridge, build a bridge over Rich passage to Bainbridge, and a bridge between East Bremerton and Bainbridge and do away with the Ferries altogether.

There is still plenty of room for growth in Kitsap County. Homes are cheaper, and maybe everyone in Seattle will move there. Congestion problem solved. (exported) Commuters in Kitsap love Mass Transit. The money they saved on cheaper homes can be used to finance construction. (that comment was made sarcastically, for theman)

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 19, 1999.

Marsha-

I hate to say this but the bulk of Seattle's problems are caused by Seattle. The bulk of King County's problems, are caused by Seattle for that matter.

Logistics just really isn
ft that hard. Ever hear the phrase, "All roads lead to Rome?" Two millenia ago, Rome had a population TWICE that of downtown Seattle. In an era when sea-going vessels only carried about 20 metric tons, and the standard bulk delivery system was an ox cart that could handle about one ton, Rome kept twice as many people supplied with food, water, sewer service, etc. They didn
ft have electricity to help. They didn
ft have gas or diesel engines. They didn
ft have railroads to help. They didn
ft have telephones, televisions, the internet, or any of the multitude of things that make it FAR EASIER to govern and supply a large town today than it ever was then.

They did it with civil engineers. They built roads. They built bridges. They built aqueducts. Many of these still exist today. And despite being handicapped with no slide rules, calculators, or computers (Heck, they did their calculations in ROMAN NUMERALS, if you can believe that), they were able to handle the logistics needs of their citizens and at the same time create public works that WERE works of art, not requiring a 1% embellishment.

So don
ft fall for this BS that you can
ft get there from here by building. You certainly can. It has been done for at least two thousand years. What is required is more civil engineers, and far fewer social enginee

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 19, 1999.

Mark wrote, "Yeah, and despite A LOT OF PEOPLE saying this (including city and county council members in King County)nobody listened." People listened, until it was clear that they had no viable alternative that would preserve the EMS system. The county agreed to be responsible to collect the money and contract for the service, as a convenient agent of the voters that approved the levy. Without voter approval of the levy, the collection authority and contracting obligation were also gone. It is real simple once you recognize the EMS/Medic One system is an optional additional service that is unfunded when the levy is rejected. The dedicated funding takes EMS out of the county budget wars, by a direct allocation by the voters. If you wont recognize it is an optional additional service, you could conclude it should have been rated highter in the county budget wars.

Your position about the EMS/Medic One levy and budget is almost (but not quite) like saying the library district budget should be rated higher or lower than some part of the county budget. The library district includes all of king county and the county asessor collects the tax levy to fund the system, but the system itself is not a county responsibility. If the library district lost funding for some reason, the county is not responsible to make it up out of the county budget. The same applies to EMS/Medic One. The difference is that the library district has dedicated permanent funding that makes a funding loss unlikely, and the EMS/Medic One system does not. What I suggested would change that; and make the EMS/Medic One system (at 30 cents/$1000)almost as important as the library system (currently authorized 50 cents/$1000).

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 19, 1999.

"It is real simple once you recognize the EMS/Medic One system is an optional additional service that is unfunded when the levy is rejected. " As opposed to 1% for art for which funding was actually INCREASED by the county council, while funding only 3 months public health and 6 months police services. (http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi- bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/display?storyID=385615315&query=McKenna)

And you wonder why the public is ceasing to trust politicians? And d, as long as you continue to be an apologist for this sort of behavior, you hemorrhage credibility, despite being an otherwise fair, rational, and articulate individual.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 20, 1999.

Typically, elections are a "thumbs up vs. thumbs down" process. Using this process to vote on the budget for every service or project places those budget items at risk at every election.

Couldn't a correlary be drawn on I-695 and transportation funding? The people knew that the majority of the MVET funds went into transportation programs and they voted to cut those funds.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.

Craig:

And my point is that funding for art, as part of the county budget, is not related to EMS or the library system which fundamentally are not part of county government. As long as you refuse to accept the facts concerning the legal status of these services, "you hemorrhage credibility, despite being an otherwise fair, rational, and articulate individual."

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 20, 1999.

"And my point is that funding for art, as part of the county budget, is not related to EMS or the library system which fundamentally are not part of county government. As long as you refuse to accept the facts concerning the legal status of these services, "you hemorrhage credibility, despite being an otherwise fair, rational, and articulate individual." " By which I would assume you believe the interim funding voted to keep these going after the levy failed was illegal? If not, then why are you trying to convince us that it would not be legal to fund Medic One from county revenue in lieu of 1% for art?

Which one to fund is a CHOICE that our elected representatives make, it is neither required by law nor ordained by God. And it's sophistry to pretend otherwise. If you have the ability to fund either Medic One or art (or $100K slush funds for each council member, or housing grants, or anything else for that matter) and elect to fund one in preference to the other, that's a CHOICE. Do you honestly believe otherwise?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 20, 1999.

Craig:

In the case of EMS, yes I believe otherwise. They funded EMS in 1998 with borrowed money to be paid back in 1999 - 2001. EMS is not a county service, and is not provided in any county that does not have an EMS levy to support it independant of the county budget.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.frei.net), December 20, 1999.

Let me rephrase some questions I asked earlier. Maybe I might get more definitive answers.

I-695 raised issues about "essential" services. Various people have indicated that the people's vote would determine what were essential services when an increase to the tax or fee for that service came up in an election. For discussion purposes, let us ignore the constitutional issues and say that voters are allowed to vote on tax and fee increases.

If the people considered a service as "non-essential", but the service did not request a tax or fee increase, how would the people get rid of that service? (I-695 only addresses voting on tax or fee increases.)

If a service finds that it has a yearly budget surplus, should the tax or fees funding that service go down? If so, what would the process for this budget adjustment be? (This would probably not occur since most services spend all of their budgets, but this is just a moot discussion anyway.)

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

Q:

If you are talking about a service like public art (Craig loves art), it will likely not be part of a ballot issue since it is a small part of the bigger county budget. If you want to get to that level of control of agency budgets, you need to run for office or support a candidate that thinks about the issues as you do. Dedicated funding goes to the voters for approval, but agency budgets include a lot of programs that do not have dedicated funding. The 695 cut of revenue will force agencies to prioritize, but those priorities do not require voter approval under our present form of government.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 21, 1999.

"Craig loves art" I do. Pay for it out of my OWN pocket though, don't ask others to buy it for me with the threat of witholding police and fire services if they don't.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 21, 1999.