Is the Blue Ribbon panel worth waiting for? Or is it merely a vehicle to justify an increase in the gas tax, and to delay this increase until after all the incumbents have been safely re-elected. From the make-up of the committee, my guess is the latter.

(http://www.thesunlink.com/news/2000/january/0110a1c.html)

The Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation. Never heard of it? You will. The governor and the Legislature created the group in 1998 to search for better ways to move people and goods during the next 20 years. Independent from the Department of Transportation, it is made up of 43 volunteers from all walks of life, including business, environmental, labor and government. Karen Schmidt, the former House Transportation Committee co-chair who recently moved to head the state Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, is the only West Sound representative. An advisory group, the commission seems to be gaining power as a policy maker, with the governor and Legislature awaiting the group's recommendations.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 10, 2000

Answers

The Blue Ribbon Panel is an exact replica of ALL government committees. They are all designed to provide employment for favored individuals in a position that does nothing but waste taxpayers money and facilitate the creation of other panels, commissions and committees. There should be an intiative to do away with all panels, committees, commissions and studies. The largest expense of government is NEVER the ACTION it is the study of ACTION which generally results in years of INACTION

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

This looks remarkably like a list of "the Usual Suspects." Particularly with Ruth Fisher in it.

BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION MEMBERS DOUG BEIGHLE The Boeing Company CHAIRMAN RICK BENDER WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL PETER BENNETT K Line America, Inc. VICE CHAIR, ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE TED BOTTIGER Washington Public Ports Assoc. DON BRISCOE Professional & Technical Engrs. MARTY BROWN GOVERNORS OFFICE GREG DEVEREUX STATE EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 28 BOB DILGER Bldg. & Constr. Trades Cncl. ROGER DORMAIER Wheat Growers Association DAVE EARLING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RUTH FISHER WASHINGTON STATE HOUSE OF REP. JIM FITZGERALD AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION #1015 BOOTH GARDNER FORMER GOVERNOR MARY MARGARET HAUGEN WASHINGTON STATE SENATE ROBERT M. HELSELL Wilder Construction Co. VICE CHAIR, REVENUE COMMITTEE DOUG HURLEY CH2MHill CHAIR, ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE PETER HURLEY TRANSPORTATION CHOICES COALITION BETTIE INGHAM YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSION JOHN F. KELLY Alaska Airlines BILL LAMPSON Lampson International, Ltd. VICE CHAIR, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE VALORIA H. LOVELAND WASHINGTON STATE SENATE RICHARD MCIVER SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL MARYANN MITCHELL WASHINGTON STATE HOUSE OF REP. TOMIO MORIGUCHI Uwajimaya, Inc. CHARLES MOTT Innovac ED MURRAY WASHINGTON STATE HOUSE OF REP. CONNIE NIVA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PATRICIA NOTTER City of Wenatchee PATRICIA OTLEY Burlington Northern Santa Fe NEIL PETERSON Transportation Solutions LARRY PURSLEY Wash. State Trucking Assns. MICHAEL E. ROBERTS SR. TRANSP. BUDGET ASST. TO THE GOVERNOR JOHN V. R INDLAUB Bank of America VICE CHAIRMAN DINO ROSSI WASHINGTON STATE SENATE GEORGE W.  SKIP ROWLEY, JR. Rowley Enterprises, Inc. CHAIR, REVENUE COMMITTEE KAREN SCHMIDT WASHINGTON STATE HOUSE OF REP. RANDY SCOTT Association of Washington Tribes GEORGE L. SELLAR WASHINGTON STATE SENATE KEN SMITH WaferTech JUDIE STANTON Clark County Commission DALE STEDMAN Wash. Good Roads & Transp. CHAIR, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE JUDY WILSON Thurston County Commission

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

I gotta give this round to maddjak. The good news is that the commission has all of its meeting minutes available on the web at (http://www.brct.wa.gov/brct/meeting.htm) The bad news is that if you take the time to read these minutes, its apparent that this is a bunch of pro big-government solution people, just looking for a way to convince the voters that they need more money to do the same stuff in the same way. The cynicism and hypocrisy in their postings is actually quite impressive. I dont know what they thought, that theyd post this but no one would read it?

http://www.brct.wa.gov/brct/docs/FullCom09-08-99.pdf September 8-9, 1999 Retreat Summary Page 4 Framework for BRCT Recommendations Gerry Cormick presented ideas for a process to move toward a recommendation package. He suggested first developing criteria to evaluate proposed solutions. The criteria should test base viability of any proposal and allow comparison among solutions. He also suggested what the elements of a package might be and introduced the concept of a stalking horse document that would lay out options. Brainstorming Session on Message Development Lead by Anne Fennessy of the BRCT staff team, members participated in a session to develop public messages. The brainstorming was organized around the following questions: What the Public Should Hear from the Commission What We Need to Know From the Public Points to get across to the Public Whos the Audience? Constituencies, Stakeholders - What they need to hear Strategy Mobility-Congestion-Alternatives Needs for Increased Spending Efficiencies, Coordination & Priorities Maintenance Safety Issues

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 10, 2000.

Wait for more taxes? They are considering the following (from their own meeting minutes at http://www.brct.wa.gov/brct/docs/RevCmte10-14- 99.pdf):

New sources: Include local (e.g. county B&O or utility tax, or city B&O on gas); regional (such as a regional sales tax or a local option gas tax); state (such as sales tax on gas, new VMT charge); and competitive (e.g., a new statewide bonded pool for large projects). To this list of new fund sources was added a city road levy; regional congestion taxes and fees; and tolls. A member proposed adding a category of "any" to include tax incentive programs. Another member proposed adding a "federal" category, with the suggestion of mangement of all federal funds at the state level.

Committee members agreed not to prioritize the above list of options.

Go figure. New fund sources = new taxes. Whoever said it was a bunch of government elites was right. Cutting wasteful spending did not account for a single one of this groups options. Apparently it did not even occur to them to try to save money.

-- Kevin McDowell (kevinmcd@microsoft.com), January 10, 2000.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls; Its pretty easy to see where the Blue Ribbon commission is going, based upon their meeting notes. MORE OF THE SAME FROM THE USUAL SUSPECTS. Time to press for the transportation improvement initiative. From the revenue committee meeting minutes (http://www.brct.wa.gov/brct/meeting.htm). Anybody thinks Im being unfair here, I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO REAL ALL THE MEETING MINUTES.

Revenue Committee Meeting Summary July 20, 1999 Page 5 Discussion of Initiative 695 Jay Reich offered a number of observations on I-695. With $1.2 billion in revenues going away, he wondered what would happen to transit. He said that what was even more insidious was the requirement for voter approval of all tax increases or monetary charges. When a government entity issues LTGO or Councilmanic bonds, that is a promise to bondholders to raise taxes as needed to pay debt service. These non-voted bonds could not be issued any more and investors would not invest in Washington State. Similarly, water and sewer districts would not be able to raise rates to meet debt service obligations. Another issue is that the State Constitution says that it is not permissible to have two subjects in one bill and it is likely that provision would apply to an initiative. It was asked whether the initiative would impact the credit of the state. It was answered that if you reduce the states revenues by $1.2 billion, you would certainly hamstring the states ability to issue debt. A committee member asked how I-695 would affect the Public Private Initiatives program. Mr. Reich replied that it would have to be determined if a toll is a monetary charge, but it would certainly put a cloud over the program. It was also asked whether if a port negotiated terms and conditions with a shipper, those rates would have to be submitted to the voters. The answer given was that the only exemptions in the initiative are tuition and criminal fines. Mr. Smith of Sequim noted that the transit agency that he serves on, Clallam Transit, would lose 46% of its revenue. It was commented that it was hard to understand where the replacement revenue would come from. It was noted that Sound Transits 0.3% MVET is locally authorized and would not be repealed, although the Department of Licensings collection mechanism would go away. It is unclear whether the MVET match of local transit agencies would be repealed too. The repayment funds for R-49 bonds would disappear so many R-49 projects are on hold. A COMMITTEE MEMBER MOVED A RESOLUTION URGING THE BOARD OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION TO TAKE A POSITION OPPOSING I-695. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED. Discussion ensued and members questioned whether as a government appointed body the Commission could take such a position. The Committee tabled the motion until next months meeting and asked staff to request a legal opinion on the question. Gerry Cormick presented ideas for a process to move toward a recommendation package. He suggested first developing criteria to evaluate proposed solutions. The criteria should test base viability of any proposal and allow comparison among solutions. He also suggested what the elements of a package might be and introduced the concept of a stalking horse document that would lay out options. Brainstorming Session on Message Development Lead by Anne Fennessy of the BRCT staff team, members participated in a session to develop public messages. The brainstorming was organized around the following questions: What the Public Should Hear from the Commission What We Need to Know From the Public Points to get across to the Public Whos the Audience? Constituencies, Stakeholders - What they need to hear Strategy Mobility-Congestion-Alternatives Needs for Increased Spending Efficiencies, Coordination & Priorities Maintenance Safety Issues

Chairman Rowley then announced that the Commission had not yet received a written opinion from the Attorney General about what involvement, if any, the Commission could have with respect to Initiative 695. A committee member suggested that the Committee would be risking its credibility if it took a position. It was also suggested that the Revenue Committee had an obligation to address the implications of the initiative. Senator Sellar and Representative Murray noted that they would have to abstain from taking any position. Revenue Committee Meeting Summary August 17, 1999 MVET: Proposed is making the source available to all modes. Members agreed to wait until after the November election to consider this topic.

REVENUE PRODUCTION AND STABILITY Under revenue production and stability, proposals included examining existing and new sources. Existing sources: To the list of increased production of existing local options (e.g., vehicle license fee increase, Removal Of Voter Approval Requirement For Local Option Gas Tax) was added authorizing use of unused RTA dollars. New sources: Include local (e.g. county B&O or utility tax, or city B&O on gas); regional (such as a regional sales tax or a local option gas tax); state (such as sales tax on gas, new VMT charge); and competitive (e.g., a new statewide bonded pool for large projects). To this list of new fund sources was added a city road levy; regional congestion taxes and fees; and tolls. A member proposed adding a category of any to include tax incentive programs. Another member proposed adding a federal category, with the suggestion of management of all federal funds at the state level. Committee members agreed not to prioritize the above list of options. Revenue Committee Meeting Summary October 14, 1999

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 10, 2000.

Westin-

The squares on this one were "bullets" on the source document. Must be a font change sort of thing.

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 10, 2000.

Blue Ribbon Commission??

Congress is continually appointing fact-finding committees, when what we really need are some fact-facing committees. Roger Allen in Grand Rapids Press

Transit don't work. Build roads! Lotsa roads! Fill in them damn wetlands, there'll be less congestion and A LOT LESS goose poop all over the place.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

Is the Blue Ribbon panel worth waiting for?

No, negative, I think I will be collecting signatures on this one.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

Out of curiousity, how many of you bothered to attend one of the public meetings held by the commission? Or for that matter, filled out one of their surveys (http://www.brct.wa.gov/brct/docs/handout.pdf) ASKING for people's suggestions on what the transportation problems are in their areas, and how they felt the problems could be solved? Anyone sign up to receive the commission's e-mail newsletter (http://www.econw.com/ brct/info.html)?

The commission did release its preliminary findings back in October (after about a year and a half of deliberations in which you COULD have offered your opinion or present information) and has been seeking input since then. Is anyone perhaps planning on attending their public hearing on the 12th (http://www.brct.wa.gov/brct/docs/hearing.htm)?

You can feel free to complain about the commission's findings, but you'd probably make a bigger impact IF you actually took the time to complain about their findings WHILE they were still deliberating them, and not wait to whine about them until AFTER the time for public input is over.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000.

Out of curiousity, how come they never asked ME? The answer is easy. Look at the make-up of the committee. Their decision was pre-ordained by their membership. Look at how they wanted to come out publicly against 695. It's wall to wall big government-more taxes people, including the lying Ruth Fisher!

Screw Transit, Build Roads!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 11, 2000.

Actually zowie, if you ever visited their website, they WOULD have asked you for advice. But I'm sure if they sent out a letter to everyone in the state or taken out ads in the local papers asking for input, then people here would have complained about how much money they were wasting. Perhaps you could send them an e-mail asking them why they didn't supply you with their information on a silver platter...

And I don't suppose you submitted your name to be nominated to the commission? I'm not sure, but I would imagine that there were slots available for the public on the committee.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000.

"I'm not sure, but I would imagine that there were slots available for the public on the committee. " Obviously, you are no expert on this yourself. They only recently published their draft. Their real proposal isn't coming out until safely after the next election. So we all have plenty of time to give input, and they do indeed take e-mail (and fax) input. But if you think Joe Average volunteer was going to get a seat on the Blue Ribbon Committee, you're CRAZY. It was hand-picked from the volunteers. That's how you got Ruth Fisher. Look at the list of members up above. See one that says "just a guy"? Everyone of them has a title. It's the transportation aristocracy.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. P. J. O'Rourke

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 11, 2000.