“The Snohomish County Planning Commission is comprised of eleven volunteers who review proposed comprehensive plans and land use regulations on behalf of the citizens of Snohomish County.  Their role is to represent the perspective of local citizens as a counter-balance to the technical perspective of a professional planning and engineering staff in a policy advisory capacity to the County Council.”

The commission votes on issues such as; whether a multifamily development can be built in your area, the types of new businesses a farmer can start on their land, how many off-street parking spaces your neighbor is required to have and the county’s capital budget, among many other issues.

Unfortunately, we don’t hear a lot of testimony from the public. There are a few interest groups and lobbyists who regularly testify but citizens are rarely engaged in the process.

The commission recently created a 6 month pilot program which provides an “open comment” period for the public to testify on issues that are not on our agenda. We hoped this would increase public involvement but after three months, not a single citizen has testified.

I recognize that we all lead busy lives and most citizens don’t have time to drive to Everett and testify. However, the commission is here for you, to be your voice.

Please take part in shaping the future of our county.

You can sign up for commission updates here: http://j.mp/11QvsUb

- The 1st legislative district closely mimics the state as a whole.

- Senator Maria Cantwell and the 2/3rds rule for raising taxes (I-1185) are by far the most popular things in the 1st leg.

- We like Governor Jay Inslee and Charter Schools (I-1240) the same amount.

- We bucked the state a bit by going with Kathleen Drew for Secretary of State rather than Kim Wyman.

Unfortunately, we don’t have televised debates at the state legislative level. Before I ran, I was naive enough to think that we would have many opportunities to be questioned by voters in large, group settings. In reality, there was only one opportunity before the primary for all three of us to be in the same room taking questions. It was the group interview with the Seattle Times Editorial Board. Senator McAuliffe and I were in attendance but Dawn had a prior commitment. Since the primary, there have been four opportunities for the remaining candidates to speak in a group forum. Only two of these events allowed questions from the audience and Senator McAuliffe was the only one in attendance. Without public debates or in-depth reporting, it’s difficult for most citizens to obtain clarity about where our candidates stand.

As a candidate for office, you receive a large number of questionnaires from special interest groups and lobbyists. These groups use your answers to determine if they will donate to your campaign and/or endorse you. There are a lot of these questionnaires and they take time to fill out.

It’s ironic but the most detailed answers that candidates will give during a campaign are probably on these surveys. The questions are usually specific and deal with a narrow set of issues. As you can see on the ones listed below, the groups want to know exactly where you stand on very detailed policy questions. Some candidates fill them out, some don’t. Some candidates only fill them out for the groups that generally support their chosen party. Some of the interest groups post the candidate responses online and others don’t.

I believe that the citizens of the 1^st District deserve the same level of detailed answers. If lobbyists and special interest groups are getting answers, then voters should get them too. Right now we are simply consumers of very polished marketing campaigns. We get direct mail pieces from candidates who claim “I know what it takes to create new jobs and get small businesses growing again.” We see signs from vaguely official sounding groups proclaiming their love for candidate x. We see websites with position statements that are carefully crafted by high priced political consultants, geared towards offending the least amount of people while saying nothing of true value.

We deserve more.

But the responsibility to get these answers is our own. We need to be engaged in the political process. We need to take the time to call or email our candidates and elected officials. We need to ask them where they stand on issues that we care about. Take the time to research their experience and ability to work with others. Ask a lot of questions.

And, of course, VOTE!

Sincerely,

Guy

Here is a sampling of the questionnaires our candidates received for the 2012 election. Maybe you will find a policy issue that is important to you. You can check each group’s website and see if they publish the candidates’ responses. Or, if not, call the candidates and ask them where they stand.

Senator Rosemary McAuliffe (D), 206-724-3109

Dawn McCravey (R), 425-299-1586

Representative Derek Stanford (D), 425-481-6231

Sandy Guinn (R), (425) 489-039

Representative Luis Moscoso (D), (425) 773-0470

Mark Davies (R), (425) 770-5279

Surveys

Amalgamated Transit Union Leg Council

American Federation of Teachers

Association of Washington Business

Citizens Alliance For Property Rights

Council On American And Islamic Relations

Graduate Washington

Master Builder Association

Mountlake Terrace News

Municipal League of King County

NARAL

National Rifle Association

National Federation of Independent Business

Planned Parenthood Northwest

Rental Housing Association

SEAmec

Sierra Club

Stand For Children

The Arc of Washington

UW Impact

Washington Conservation Voters

Washington Food Industry Association

Washington Prosperity Project

Washington Retail Association

Washington State Council of Firefighters

Washington State Labor Council

Washington State Nurses Association

Washington Education Association

Freedom Foundation

Others include: League of Humane Voters, Washington Coalition for Open Government, League of Women Voters, Poverty Action Network, Family Policy Institute Washington

Right now, the Democrats have 27 seats and the Republicans have 22. There are a few senators, on both sides of the aisle, who are considered to be “moderates” and will often break from their party on certain policy issues. Here is what the balance of the Senate looks like today.

There are only a few races that are truly competitive in the Senate. Predicting election results is always challenging but some changes we can count on:

1)  Sen. Jim Kastama (D) from the 25^th district left the legislature to run for Secretary of State.

2)  It is almost a certainty that Rep. Bruce Dammeier (R) is going to take over Kastama’s seat.

3)  In the 10^th district Sen. Margaret Haugen (D) lost in the primary to Rep. Barbara Bailey (R). This is a tight race for sure and we don’t know what the final result will be. For the moment, let’s assume that the primary results are predictive of the general election and Rep. Bailey (R) wins.

4)  In the 5^th Brad Toft (R) got a late start due to Sen. Cheryl Pflug (R) retiring at the last minute. Brad lost the primary to Mark Mullet (D). The 5^th is traditionally a Republican district so we will leave this one in the Republican column.

5)  In the 17^th, Sen. Don Benton (R) is facing a tough race from Rep. Tim Probst (D). Sen. Benton won the primary and this is a Republican district so let’s assume it stays Republican.

This is what the Senate might look like:

That leaves our Senate seat here in the 1st legislative district  as the deciding factor for control.

There are really big things at stake in this election cycle. Please be informed and please vote on November 6^th.

You can also follow along on Twitter @the1stdistrict.

Guy

As I proposed on this website, we should be looking at ways to ensure that every single government department is operating as efficiently as possible. Whether it’s a superintendent of a school district, the head of the Department of Ecology, the capital campus janitorial staff or the governor, we need to focus on making better business decisions for our citizens.

A new Elway Poll was just released that vividly illustrates that a large majority of the public feels the same way. The poll focused on the areas of tax burden and government performance. The main conclusion is:

“These findings, showing evaluation of government performance going down at the same time that the perception of the tax burden is easing, suggests that voters’ complaint is not with the level of taxes. Survey results, and even the ballot measures, have consistently indicated an electorate that expects results and accountability for its tax dollars. This survey is evidence that voters see government performance heading in the wrong direction.”

Some of the statistics that jump out to me from this poll are:

-          64% of citizens say their taxes are not spent well by state government.

-          That number is even higher among independents, 66%.

-          71% say that most state agencies are ineffective. This is up from 62% in 2010.

All of this data confirms that citizens do not believe state government is efficient in how it operates.

One area that illustrates these inefficiencies is the state Department of Enterprise Services (DES). We, as citizens, pay for a number of large data centers which house our data on physical computer servers. You may have heard about the new Consolidated Technology Service (CTS) building we paid almost $300 million for. Consolidation of technology departments makes sense because it can create synergies and save us money.  But running a big server farm is not something that the government should be in the business of doing. Most smart companies are moving to Cloud Storage Services rather than operating their own data centers. The federal government, as well as many local governments, already use Cloud Computing without security issues.

Cloud Storage is just a fancy term for outsourcing the work of managing and owning expensive hardware to other private companies who specialize in it. The worldwide leader in cloud technology is Amazon.com which is located right here in Seattle. Microsoft, Google and others also play in this arena.  Rather than spend our money on expensive servers that break, their service contracts, electricity bills and employees to manage them we could outsource this function and save the taxpayers millions.

I have been trying to get exact figures on how much we currently spend for data storage but our government agencies are not as transparent as they should be. I have been able to find some basic statistics. Washington State pays almost $1 billion per year on technology services. DES spends $80.3 million per year on data processing and $20.5 million per year on technology acquisition.  The business plan for the new CTS department called for spending $4.50 per gigabyte, per year for data storage on the servers we own. The state has at least 2,293,161 gigabytes of data which amounts to $10,319,225 worth of data storage per year. And the scary thing is that $4.50 per gigabyte cost does not include things like; maintenance costs, service contracts, facility costs, employee costs, pensions, health care, etc.

By comparison, Amazon Web Services charges $0.76 per gigabyte, per year for a cost of $1,733,629. That is a minimum savings of $8,585,596 per year, to say nothing of the additional savings from the other costs such as labor and facilities.

Imagine how much good that money could do in education or health and human services.  We could fully fund the implementation of the new teacher and principal evaluation bill through 2017 in 2 short years and have money left over every year after. We could fund WAKids in less than 2 years.

We need business leaders, not career politicians, to bring real world private sector experience to bear upon our inefficient government.  We need to earn back the trust of our citizens so that 64% won’t feel that we are wasting their money.

Please vote for me this August 7^th so I can start working on this problem.

It’s called the PACE program and it’s available in three elementary schools in the NSD.  The program starts in 1^st grade and continues through grade 6. There is one PACE classroom per grade in each of the three PACE schools, and 5 – 8 feeder schools that send students there to participate. It’s a popular program and there are routinely long waiting lists, especially in the younger 1^st – 4^th grades. There is easily enough demand to fill a second PACE classroom in these grades.

For children to participate, the parents of PACE students agree to volunteer a minimum of 80 hours of their time over the school year and pay an annual fee of $175. The hours they volunteer can be in or out of the classroom although most are in class. The PACE teacher schedules parent participation in the classroom and utilizes parent resources to assist with grading, preparation of materials, etc. The curriculum for the class is the same as the non-PACE classes. It is not an advanced learning or accelerated program. The teachers are free to use the additional funds towards materials or curriculum based field trips.

The real value of the program is the teacher’s ability to utilize volunteers in the classroom to break the kids up into smaller groups or work stations. It allows differentiated learning so that the teacher can really focus on kids who are struggling or challenge other kids who are excelling.

Data provided by the NSD from the Spring 2011 Measurements of Student Progress (MSP) tests show that PACE students score higher than non-PACE students.  For the following chart, Level 1 is below basic, Level 2 is basic, Level 3 is proficient, and Level 4 is exceeding standard.

Some of this difference in student scores is probably due to PACE children having more engaged parents. But intuitively, anytime you provide this much assistance to a teacher it is going to have an impact on student development. Just think about how much more productive you would be at your job if I gave you a minimum of 1,840 hours of help from an assistant over the course of the year.

Why are we not looking into expanding this program?

Surely there are always complications when you try to scale any program or service. I imagine in school districts that have a higher percentage of free/reduced lunch, we may need to eliminate the fee. And demand might be less due to a lack of parent volunteers who can donate their time.

But this is a winning program that costs the taxpayers $0. It is entirely PTA run and funded. This could be a statewide PTA run program that can help to close the achievement gap. It’s not a panacea but it’s innovative and could really be a big win for our children.