BTA III - The Capital Levy

time spent: 1 hr 20 minutes

Going back to the first proposition, the capital levy, I researched more about SPSs spending history at http://bta.seattleschools.org/. This site provides information going back to the first Buildings, Technology and Academics (BTA) Program. It addresses the projects associated with each BTA program and I was also able to find a 2006 Report to the Community on how monies were spent. It's a bit harder to it down further; i.e. associate each dollar (BTA I, II or III) with each project since many of these roll from one funding period to the next.

Taking into consideration the comments of the opposition, my thought process is as follows:

• Their first opposing point addresses maintenance. Last I checked, maintenance came under Operating expenses, so I'm inclined to associate this objection with Proposition number two. I said before that I believe their underlying argument is, if SPS did proper maintenance to begin with, these capital expenditures would not be necessary in the first place. So this is a punitive argument, an argument of principle.
• Their second argument is that over half of the buildings at SPS are over 50 years old and not being properly maintained. In my research at the SPS site, I read that their goal was to drive the average age of buildings down from 60 years to 48 years. Okay, to me that translates to modernization, a capital expense. Yet the opposition also states that SPS already spent over $700m to build new buildings that they do not properly maintain. Hmm...So here are the initial questions generated from this information: What buildings are associated with the $700m referenced? Is the capital requested associated with these same building or new ones, i.e. are we talking apples and oranges?
• Further stated in the rebuttal of statement in favor, the opposition argues that there is already a $500m maintenance backlog, therefore this ($270m) levy will barely make a dent. Again, my pea-sized brain corresponds maintenance to operating expenses, so I am inclined to take that $500m and compare it against the operations levy, proposition two, a 3-year levy that raises $442.7m. So the questions forming in my mind are: Confirm the backlog exists. If it does, are they not being completed because current funds are depleted or for other reasons? What is the ratio of funding (capital, operating) for these projects? How does this backlog affect the projects reserved for this new round of funding, i.e. if the maintenance could be performed, would it alleviate the need for additional capital expenses?

I decided that I will call SPS next week to get some of my questions answered through specific references that I can review independently. In fairness, if I am going to reach out to SPS, I decided I would also reach out to the opposition to see if I can get some factual reference so I can review and arrive at my own independent conclusion. Alas, the contact name representing the opposition on the ballot does not have an email or phone number listed, which will make the task that much more difficult.

The more I read the less I understand

time spent: 10 minutes

As I picked up the voter's pamplet today to continue my journey, I glanced at the second proposition, the operations levy. A summary of the levy indicates that the funds are used for salaries, books and other day-to-day operations. Once again, on the surface this seems reasonable, although the devil is in the details, which are not addressed in a voter's guide. My task is to research how the district has managed these funds in the past and whether I can cast a vote of confidence that the funds will be managed responsibly.

Hoping to get a jump on my research, I turned once again to the statement of opposition. Unfortunately, the message of the opposition only introduced further confusion. The opposition, it appears to me, is rejecting the proposition on principle. Their primary argument is to support racial balance across the district. I understand their position, but it only leaves me - the voter - with more dots to connect. The opening statement of the argument against the levy was intriguing:

"Citizens of a democracy on occasion have the firm but lucky opportunity and duty to refuse funding for especialy harmful government actions. Threatening to segregate a full one-quarter of Seattle's public schools is a call to exercise this duty."

The group in opposition is claiming that the SPS "will take away school choice, split communities and segregate schools." I moved within the SPS just five years ago by which time my children were beyond high school age. In a nutshell as I understand it, SPS had allowed parents to indicate school preference for their children, regardless of whether they lived within the traditional school boundaries. I don't think everyone got their first or maybe even second choice, but it had been apparently working out for some who felt their children were benefitting from a better education.

The way I read the statement, the opposing group is either saying that this operations levy will directly impact this choice, or to my point earlier, they are rejecting this measure as leverage against the program they are arguing to preserve.

Either way, this only leaves me with more research.

Not Tonight, I have a headache

Time spent: nada

Another day, another headache. If I am willing to think at all tonight, it won't be about politics. On a hopeful note, the weekend is coming so I should have some free time to devote to this.

Digging Deeper

time spent: 30 minutes

Okay, Monday's tomorrow turned into today, but it's part of the honest assessment of allowing time for this project. I was busy at work and my brain hurt (again) by the end of the day, unwilling to process new thought.

Since February 9th is just around the corner, I'm going to have to hustle. The first thing I did today was go to the Seattle Public Schools site to access additional information about the 2010 levies:

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/levy-info/2010/levy_broch_2009.pdf

This provided a breakdown of the projects and schools affected. Fair enough. Sure, this is a biased position, a promise - but at least it is a documented promise that can be audited. I am not defending SPS, yet this project is already revealing for me how much 'weight' the authority of government has in the process of making decisions. I am compelled to trust them to a large degree. Hmm....

Unfortunately, the rebuttal team has no website or blog posted for me to get more information. They do have a contact name on the voter's guide (only the operations levy offers a telephone number), but I'm not of the mind to really engage at that level. This project is about trying to access unbiased fact.

I indicated on Monday's post that I interpret the opposing view to suggest that at least a portion of the projects listed are unnecessary and/or that, had SPS done a better job of maintenance and expense management in the first place, the amount proposed on the levy would be significantly reduced. So the position is somewhat punitive, but it could completely valid. Which brings me to the fork in the road.

I am sure someone or some group has spent a tremendous amount of time and effort researching exactly how the SPS budget has been managed. Without talking with these people directly, I will have to dig deep for the data. Ugh! At this moment, I am wishing the opposition group would have provided a link to a blog or website posting information that backs up their position, i.e. a spreadsheet that takes the last few levies and compares the (then) stated intent to the actual execution. In other words, I wish they would share the results of their legwork to back up their conclusion - and cited the source.

But...that's what this whole project is for. To evaluate the journey of an individual conducting independent research.

Even as I write this I can already appreciate the effort some people do take on behalf of the masses. It's certainly more work that I could do on my own - and this is just for 2 propositions!
This early endeavor validates the obvious reasons voter's rely on media and community circulation.

Tomorrow I will try to dig deeper or I may reach out to the number on the voter's pamphlet to see if I can get a jump start linking to the source.

Reading the Arguments on the Ballot

Time spent: 20 minutes

Today I read through the Statements For and Statements Against the two propositions currently being considered and this is how I interpreted their respective positions. The Capital Levy Statement in support of the proposition presented an expected strategy: do this for the kids, using impact words such as 'safety', 'improvements' and 'learning tools' needed to 'succeed'. Of course I'm in support of all those things which is probably why it was always a no-brainer for me in the past. This year I intend to challenge myself to examine the detail behind the broad statement. The Statement in rebuttal suggested that, had Seattle Public Schools (SPS) kept up maintenance in the first place to protect their original investments, this request wouldn't be necessary. So I guess the approach for the rebuttal is don't give more money because it isn't being managed properly today and won't be managed properly tomorrow. The opposition is 'demanding accountability'. On the surface, both sides appear to have valid points and if that is the case, what is the solution? One thing I'd like to see from the opposing view is a proposal for an alternate solution.

On the same web page that the proposition is posted I can scroll down to read the full text of the proposed resolution. It's seven pages with the requisite whereas and therefore's and it provided a little more information about where the money will go. For example, the resolution lists energy efficient upgrades, green school initiatives and roof replacements. Beyond that, however, there is no list as to which school gets what. How did they arrive at their budget? What other solutions did they explore?

It is painfully clear that what is presented on a voter's pamphlet is very high level and it makes me wonder just how many people cast their vote on the pamphlet alone. Tomorrow I am going to dig deeper to find the details....

First Ballot of the Year

Time spent: 1 hour 20 minutes

This has been a busy week and already I can see that two hours is really a lot of time. At the end of my work day I really don't want to think anymore. My brain gets so backlogged with data accumulated over the course of the day that I need to give it time to sort through the information, cataloging the useful thoughts and purging the trivial. So the bulk of the two hours of weekly research is condensed to a Sunday afternoon - not the best plan.

I realize I am posting this blog mostly for myself at this point, because I haven't figured out how to add my site to search engines yet. Although I work in the technology sector, creating a blog is completely foreign to me. In fact I think I spent about $100 that didn't need spending, when all was said and done.

Thursday I received my first ballot and voter's guide of the year. The proactive research I did (posted earlier) tipped me off to expect this ballot. There are two propositions on this ballot, both related to tax levies in my school district. In the past, I used to vote in support of virtually every levy associated with public education without giving it much thought. Support the children, improve education standards, support the teachers - I automatically assumed that each school levy would result in furthering these causes, and I'd still like to think that is the case. However, as I have the impression that tax increases are about to materialize from local, state and federal mandates in some manner or another, it is necessary that I apply more scrutiny to requests for my money.

In addition to receiving the paper copy of the voter's guide in the mail, I was able to locate an electronic guide on the King County website:

www.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201002/measures.aspx

The two levies that apply to me are in the Seattle School District No. 1, Propositions 1 and 2, the former proposing a six year levy and the latter a three year levy. Within the Explanatory Statement is one sentence that intrigues me: "The proposed levy will replace an expiring levy." I've always wondered happens when levies expire - have my taxes ever reflected the correspondent decrease? Now I'm starting to feel a little guilty for being one of the people who always supported school levies. Thanks to voters like me, I probably never had a chance to find out.

In reality, who ever audits their taxes anyway? Maybe I'll spend some time this year examining just how involved that might be...

I estimated what the taxes would cost me over the course of the first 3 years of the 2 propositions combined, then the remaining 3 years of the remaining proposition. Real estate values have gone down somewhat, but I'll estimate my property to be worth approximately $600,000. For the sake of argument, I'll assume the property value will increase at a rate of 2% per year. This is how it breaks down (rounded up to the nearest dollar):

Year 1 $852
Year 2 $851
Year 3 $892
Year 4 $191
Year 5 $188
Year 6 $179

Hmmm. By itself I would have no problem at all supporting these, but almost one thousand dollars the first 3 years is a bit tough. This brings me back to my original question then, which is how much tax have I been paying on the levy about to expire and will that tax go away? If the answer is yes, then the net tax increase for me may not be quite that high. Definitely something to research. Looks like I have next week's work cut out for me.

Exploring the City site

Total time: 20 minutes

Today, I researched the City of Seattle to similarly acquaint myself with the governing site of my local community. As with the State, I found that when I go their home site, if I do a search on the word ‘voter’ I can almost immediately locate the link addressing elections. In this case, the site is called the Ethics and Elections Commission:

(http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/votersguide.asp)

Already I discovered there was a special election scheduled for February 9th for two school district levies. On this same page I could link to the voter’s pamphlet and determine the dates for the primary and general election. Most useful was the plain statement:

There are no regularly scheduled elections for Seattle City Council, Mayor or City Attorney in 2010. The next regularly scheduled elections for city offices will be in 2011.

There is no City of Seattle ballot measures currently scheduled to be on the ballot in 2010.

However, here is a List of Campaigns that have formed to promote or oppose potential 2010 ballot measures.


As it happens, we had our elections just last year for office positions, but this page also offered a list of City Council positions that will be on the ballot for 2011 and there was only one potential ballot issue posted. I thought this page provided a very tidy summary of what I can expect or not expect for 2010. Kudos, City of Seattle!

One link I found intriguing was a Charts and Graphs link, which apparently records campaign contributions categorized by type, area and size. I never really followed this or paid much attention, unless I heard it over the news media when special interest groups were particularly generous in promoting their cause.

There is also a contributor list available. The link provided a very user friendly way to inquire about contributors associated with any given campaign. Since there is only one potential issue registered so far, I made my inquiry. Right away a list popped up with names of donors along with their individual as well as aggregate donation.

So for now I know that there is a special School Levy vote on February and a potential ballot issue for some future election. I may take a deeper look at the Levy issues later in the week. In the past, I’ve been known to support school levies without much thought, but as our budgets tighten and in anticipation of higher taxes all around, I may have to give this further consideration.

Project Launched!

Time spent: 15 minutes

To more fully engage in the voter experience I intend to access the respective city, county and government websites addressing upcoming candidates, referenda and initiatives being filed in 2010.

Today I accessed the State of Washington website and found this page to be a good starting point:

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/Default.aspx


This site provided links to additional information, such as a handbook for filing Initiatives and Referenda and Statewide standards of what constitutes a ‘valid’ vote (recall the infamous Gore vs. Bush Supreme Court Ruling regarding the Florida state Presidential ballots in 2000.)

Navigating through this site, I immediately began to raise my level of consciousness regarding the birth of legislative issues. For example, I listen to the news nearly every day and inevitably there is some reference to legislation either being proposed to the voters or being considered by our appointed State legislature. What failed to resonate until now was how early the process begins. Currently, the last day to file an initiative to the 2011 Legislature is March 10, 2010. This means that most initiatives on the table for consideration in 2010 were submitted almost a year ago.

Perhaps the most valuable and friendly feature of this page was the Voter’s Corner. Here, I could select an icon called My Vote and when I enter my name and date of birth, another page pops up with my Voter’s Pamphlet, Voting History and Elected Officials. I decided this was a great starting point because from here I will be able to identify upcoming initiatives and candidates for consideration this year. Here’s how it works:

When I expand the section called Voter’s Pamphlet, it will let me know whether there is an election in my area at this time. It also offers a link to the election calendar, which will identify election dates scheduled for this year. (You can also view the elections calendar by linking to http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/calendar_list.aspx?y=2010)


On the same page, I expanded the section called Elected Officials. Here I can identify the federal and state officials supporting my community. This is where I identified which Congressional District and Legislative District I belonged to, as well as the judicial seats presiding over the State and County Court.

That may be it for today. It's Sunday and I have to work for about an hour and a half, after which I intend to allow my brain to relax.

Welcome

Somewhere embedded in my sense of citizenship and patriotism, I felt it was a voter's responsibility to do their homework, especially when voting a representative into office. Presuming that upon installment in office, these officials would be acting on behalf of the people they represent, the homework I did up front offered the best chance of casting a vote for the 'right' candidate.

I felt it was my duty, but I did a poor job of executing. I was not doing enough independent research before casting my vote. Recently I wondered, had I cast my decisions on accurate information? Who among my resources was actually presenting factual, unbiased evidence? How much of my vote was "emotional" versus "objective"?

I have to admit, at times there were so many positions and so many names on a ballot I hadn't even heard of that on occasion, my ultimate selection may have been based on random thoughts. Mea Culpa - but I'm not alone. I know people who have quietly admitted to doing much the same thing.

I knew then and I know now that it is unrealistic to expect the average citizen to conduct first hand research into every candidate and every initiative presented to them over the course of an election period. That's one reason why we rely so heavily on the media for an "unbiased" journalistic view. Nonetheless, the question remained: just how much research can I conduct on my own before it completely disrupts my lifestyle? What if I took the top two or three items that were most important to me? Could I manage that? What would I base my vote on for the remaining items on the ballot? Would I even cast a vote or take a pass on those issues?

Those questions provided the inspiration for this endeavor. I intend to give focused effort over the life of one year to the life of a ballot - my ballot.

For my comrades who share this dilemma every time the ballot rolls around, I hope this research contributes a small measure of information and comfort as you head to the polls the next time around.

About the Project

What: This blog is represents, in real time, a twelve month project following an average citizen’s deliberate attempt to conduct first hand research of selected ballot measures and campaigns leading up to the election process.

Why: Over a period of time I realized just how much I depended on media and anecdotal information to influence my vote. Over the past couple of years, I grew increasingly uncertain of the accuracy and/or un-bias of the information being conveyed.

After all, we vote for politicians (and pay their salary) to make decisions and take action on our behalf. I argued that it was not only a right, but a voter’s responsibility to do the homework to cast the most educated vote for the person or initiative that aligns most closely with their personal values. During the last general election, I experienced information overload with so many disparate views that I really wondered where the ‘truth’ was buried.

My gut tells me that it is practically impossible for the average citizen to thoroughly research every ballot measure. I also suspect I will struggle with the language of the measure. Still, these measures are drawn up for the people in the interest of the people. I am an educated citizen who can walk and chew gum at the same time so I think I can do justice to this project. The question is, to what extent do we really have to rely on media and others to interpret the ballot measure and just how much can we reasonably accomplish on our own?

When: Starting at the posting of this blog in January 2010, through December 31, 2010 (or thereabouts).

How: To be realistic, I will follow select ballot measures (depending on timing) and at least one candidate’s campaign for election/re-election. These will more than likely be representative of local or state government affairs. I set a goal of doing two full hours of personal research per week, as much as possible tracing information to the direct source. My goal is to keep it real.

Where: I preside in the State of Washington, so state and local references will be specific to my area. Most of my research will be conducted online. As I follow this journey I will post my sources, many of which I suspect will be government agency sites. With that in mind, let’s assume each state will have similar resources available.