Boom goes the Budget Dynamite, and A Modest Proposal
The most recent budget forecast says we could be looking at a $718 million dollar deficit when the legislature convenes next year. This is better than the $2.5 billion hole they had a couple of years ago, but still disappointing after the spending spree we saw this session. Schools will feel the impact, since we're the biggest part of the state budget, but there's still a lot of time between now and then.
For a while now I've been meaning to plug the 2006 Legislative Report from the Washington Association of School Administrators. It's the most comprehensive document out there for seeing just what was talked about in Olympia last session from a school standpoint. They show you the ideas that passed as well as the ones that were left on the cutting room floor, which is appreciated. I'm hoping they'll do an update to let us know which laws Governor Gregoire signed and which ones were left to go begging.
And speaking of laws that went begging, let's talk about SB 6411, which would have authorized 6 year long collective bargaining agreements for classified employees and certain other groups, like policemen. It passed the House 74-24 and the Senate 43-4, but was vetoed by the Governor because the duration of bargaining agreements is a mandatory issue in bargaining, could be imposed upon either side during binding arbitration, and thus could be a fiscal menace.
Well and good. In her veto letter the Governor says she'd be more willing to look at the bill next year if those things were addressed. Here's what I'd like to see:
1) Change the bill to include teachers. Any Superintendant or Uniserv rep will tell you that bargaining has a cost attached to it. If that cost occured every six years (or even every four years) instead of every three years, money will be saved.
2) Work around the binding arbitration issue by removing duration from the list of things that are mandatory bargaining items. I have no idea if that's even possible, but it would take care of the big problem.
There's no way that this is a bad thing. If a unit wants to negotiate a 6 year contract they should have every right to do so. If an association can get more money for their members in return for a 4 year contract instead of a three year deal, why not?
For a while now I've been meaning to plug the 2006 Legislative Report from the Washington Association of School Administrators. It's the most comprehensive document out there for seeing just what was talked about in Olympia last session from a school standpoint. They show you the ideas that passed as well as the ones that were left on the cutting room floor, which is appreciated. I'm hoping they'll do an update to let us know which laws Governor Gregoire signed and which ones were left to go begging.
And speaking of laws that went begging, let's talk about SB 6411, which would have authorized 6 year long collective bargaining agreements for classified employees and certain other groups, like policemen. It passed the House 74-24 and the Senate 43-4, but was vetoed by the Governor because the duration of bargaining agreements is a mandatory issue in bargaining, could be imposed upon either side during binding arbitration, and thus could be a fiscal menace.
Well and good. In her veto letter the Governor says she'd be more willing to look at the bill next year if those things were addressed. Here's what I'd like to see:
1) Change the bill to include teachers. Any Superintendant or Uniserv rep will tell you that bargaining has a cost attached to it. If that cost occured every six years (or even every four years) instead of every three years, money will be saved.
2) Work around the binding arbitration issue by removing duration from the list of things that are mandatory bargaining items. I have no idea if that's even possible, but it would take care of the big problem.
There's no way that this is a bad thing. If a unit wants to negotiate a 6 year contract they should have every right to do so. If an association can get more money for their members in return for a 4 year contract instead of a three year deal, why not?
posted by Ryan at 7:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home