Our Candidate Endorsement Process

WFSE's biennial Endorsements Conference will be held Saturday, April 17, in Seattle. This conference will serve as the beginning of our process for making our union's endorsement decisions for candidates running for office this year.

There are a variety of ways that our union can make an endorsement in a political campaign, but each method is built on two common principles:

- All endorsements are based solely on state worker issues -- pay, benefits, job protection, contracting out, working conditions, etc. -- and nothing else.

- The endorsement process is democratic and participatory.

To help members understand how these decisions are made I thought it would be helpful to post our union's formal endorsement process, as adopted by our Executive Board, verbatim:

WFSE/AFSCME Council 28 may make endorsements for legislative, congressional and statewide candidates, and to support or oppose statewide ballot measures.

Endorsements may be made by the biennial endorsements conference, by the council executive board, by local presidents representing members residing within a specific jurisdiction, or by the Council 28 convention.

WFSE/AFSCME will strive to ensure as many member voices as possible are heard during the endorsement process. WFSE/AFSCME will strive to communicate to our members whom the council has endorsed and why.

ENDORSEMENTS CONFERENCE

The WFSE/AFSCME endorsements conference shall be held in even numbered years. Delegates to the endorsements conference shall be the executive officers, the executive board, and two delegates from each local. Local delegates must provide written documentation signed by their local president and secretary confirming their status as that local’s delegate.

Endorsement of a candidate shall be by a 2/3 vote of delegates. Endorsement of or opposition to a statewide ballot measure shall be by a majority vote of delegates.

The endorsements conference shall be presided over by the president, or his/her designee. Delegates will receive a recommendation from the executive director, or his/her designee, in each endorsement considered. Delegates will also receive recommendations brought forward by interview teams, if available.

All votes shall be by voice, except a division of the house may be ordered by the Chair or requested from the floor. A roll call will be ordered with 25% support of registered and voting delegates. If a request for a roll call is sustained, each local represented by a registered delegate will be entitled to cast votes equal to that local’s most recent monthly per capita strength, and each Council 28 Executive Board member and statewide officer shall cast one vote.

EXECUTIVE BOARD

The WFSE/AFSCME executive board may make endorsements that are not in conflict with decisions made by the endorsement conference. Endorsement of a candidate shall be by a 2/3 vote of the executive board. Endorsement of or opposition to a statewide ballot measure shall be by a majority vote of the executive board.

The executive board will receive a recommendation from the executive director, or his/her designee, in each endorsement considered by the board. The executive board will also receive recommendations brought forward by interview teams, if available.

LOCAL PRESIDENTS

Endorsements for legislative offices may be made by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the executive director and local presidents representing ten or more members in the appropriate district, or their designees. Endorsements made by the executive director and local presidents may not conflict with decisions made by the endorsements conference.

Local presidents will be asked to appoint up to two delegates to interview teams when applicable. Interview team delegates will have the authority to vote for or against an endorsement on behalf of their local. If there are not enough locals present at the interview to reach the 2/3 threshold, local presidents will be polled until it is determined whether or not an endorsement will be made.

Local presidents will receive a recommendation from the executive director, or his/her designee, in each endorsement considered.

CONVENTION

The WFSE/AFSCME convention may make endorsements for legislative, congressional and statewide candidates, and to support or oppose statewide ballot measures.

Endorsement of a candidate shall be by a 2/3 vote of delegates. Endorsement of or opposition to a statewide ballot measure shall be by a majority vote of delegates.

Delegates will receive a recommendation from the executive director, or his/her designee, in each endorsement considered by the convention. Delegates will also receive recommendations brought forward by interview teams, if available.

INTERVIEW TEAMS

Where advisable, teams of WFSE members will be assembled to interview candidates and make recommendations regarding endorsements. Interview teams shall use a standardized questionnaire, provided by the council, to ensure consistency. An interview team may formalize a recommendation by a majority vote.

Understanding how the endorsement process works is important. But perhaps equally important is to understand how individual members can have an impact on the union’s endorsement decisions.

Most endorsement decisions are made by delegates representing local unions, so the first thing a member interested in getting involved should do is communicate with their local president.

- Find out how your local selects its delegates to the Endorsements Conference and participate in that process. Amazingly, some local unions don’t send any delegates to the Endorsements Conference, so getting involved at the local level is oftentimes very beneficial.

- Volunteer to participate as a representative of your local on candidate interview teams. Again, some locals don’t participate at all in the interview process, and local presidents sometimes have a hard time finding someone who is willing and able to serve.

- Hold your president and your local union accountable for making sure your interests are being considered during the endorsement process.

Members interested in specific details about the Endorsement Conference should drop Diana a note. Naturally, any other comments, questions and suggestions are welcome as well. -- Dennis

Questions To Ponder For Political Junkies

It's the time of session where we spend hours standing in the hallway. I might as well post some items of interest while I'm waiting.


> Can Democrats win back the support of labor?

Following up on a story I've mentioned before, NPR's Austin Jenkins reports that relationships remain uneasy between legislative Democrats and the labor movement. "The trick for Democrats is striking the right balance," writes Jenkins. "Just as they’re trying to mend fences with labor, they have to close another $2.6 billion budget shortfall and demonstrate to voters that they’re willing to take on entrenched interests... All of this is happening in a high-stakes election year. All House members and about half of state senators are up for re-election in 2010. Democrats need their base to be fired-up and ready to work."


> Will the 2010 be a year where voters turn against Democratic incumbents?

Ted Van Dyk at Crosscut.com suggests incumbents generally, and Democrats in particular, could be in trouble in this year's elections. "To voters, 2010 elections, some nine months distant, are something only remotely in mind," Van Dyk says. "To elected officials, however, they are a consuming topic as they face what many sense to be the imminence of their hanging. Could presumed safe-seat incumbents, such as Sen. Patty Murray, be at risk? The answer, almost everywhere, is yes."

Van Dyk points out that trends are going against the Democrats now and, even though the election is still months away, there's reason to believe things aren't going to get any better between now and the election. "The message for Republicans is: Don't count political chickens before they hatch," Van Dyk concluded. "An anti-incumbent tide will not be enough to elect your candidates if those candidates are unattractive or appear unqualified... In 2010, however, hopes of GOP bumbling will not be enough to save incumbent Democrats running in perilous conditions. They will have to run hard and smart to keep their places."


> What's the difference between a "Blue/Green" legislator and a "Roadkill" legislator?

Jerry Cornfield of the Everett Herald reports that there are now competing sub-caucuses among legislative Democrats. "Centrist Democrats frustrated that their ideas and voices are routinely mashed by the Legislature’s liberals and conservatives are banding together," Cornfield writes. "They call themselves the Roadkill Caucus... They envision themselves staking out and securing a middle ground in heated philosophical debates sure to break out in the session’s pressure-packed final days... Historically, there have been many such caucuses within the Legislature. This year, they are most visible among Democrats who hold majorities in both chambers of the Legislature. Best known is the Blue-Green Caucus with roughly 20 House members whose political concerns are centered on labor and environmental issues."


Oh, well. Politics can be brutal, but it's never boring. -- Dennis

Rep. Williams Proposes Reducing Legislative Per Diem

SB 6503, the "furlough bill," has been sitting on the House floor calendar for several days now and could be brought up for a vote by the full House at any time. A couple of different amendments have been submitted but the most provocative is the amendment proposed by Rep. Brendan Williams (D-22).

Williams' amendment would "reduce the per diem compensation paid to legislators during the 2011 session by an amount equivalent to the reduction in employee compensation costs achieved under this act for the average legislative employee." In his Feb. 5 Legislative Update, Williams wrote:

"So while a financial industry that taxpayers bailed out resumes showering record bonuses upon executives, we’re to somehow blame our state’s budget shortfall on . . . state employees in charge of child support enforcement? Mental health nurses? Community corrections officers? Audiologists at the School for the Deaf? Custodians? Social workers? Those processing unemployment claims? Community college professors? If politicians choose to pile more hardship onto the working-class families in my district, they should take some responsibility upon themselves."

Most folks don't realize that legislative staff voluntarily took furloughs last year to prevent layoffs, and now SB 6503 imposes even more furloughs on them [See Sec. 2(e)]. Legislators themselves can't be furloughed because the state constitution requires their salaries to be set by an independent commission, which is why Williams proposes reducing per diem. It's not "salary." -- Dennis

It's Raining Cash Bonuses In the Attorney General's Office

Joel Connelly of the Seattle P-I recently reported that the Attorney General's office awarded $599,000 in cash bonuses to exempt employees in FY 2009 -- more than any other state agency. A spokesperson for Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, is quoted as defending the bonuses as "a fiscally responsible and highly accountable form of recognition."

The Northwest Progressive Institute isn't buying it. "We've lost track of how many times we have heard Republicans both inside and outside of state government claim that state employees are too well paid and that government is wasteful. And yet, here we have a situation where state employees working for a Republican were given bonuses well after it had become painfully clear that we were facing an unprecedented budget crisis."

SHB 2998, sponsored by Rep. Larry Seaquist (D-26), extending the temporary ban on cash bonuses for state workers, was recently approved by the Senate Ways & Means Committee. We are grateful for the leadership of Rep. Seaquist, along with Rep. Mike Armstrong (R-12) and Rep. Sam Hunt (D-22), on this issue. -- Dennis

Will the Legislature Close Some Tax Loopholes?

A recent cover story in the Seattle Weekly went into some depth on the issue of tax loopholes. "Over the past two years alone," Rick Anderson reported, "[tax loopholes] have accounted for a record $98.5 billion in potential tax revenue the state never got... When Seattle Weekly detailed the breaks in a cover story six years ago, the headline was '$64 Billion Falls Through the Tax Cracks.' There were 503 tax breaks on the books then. Today there are 567. Thanks to new exemptions and inflation, the amount of uncollected taxes has doubled over the past decade."

Anderson notes that in the face of a major economic crisis, legislators are talking about closing some loopholes but it won't be easy. "Any major exemption repeals would be a course change for the legislature, which has been adding breaks at the rate of more than a dozen each year. Repeal may be in the air, but more than two dozen new exemption bills have already been offered this session."

Into the breach steps Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48), Chair of the House Finance Committee, who has introduced HB 3176. According to Brad Shannon of the Olympian, HB 3176 "would raise or protect up to $363 million in revenue in the next year by eliminating a series of tax exemptions."

Lightning quick, the Seattle Times launched the first counter-attack, warning Legislators "they had better not" raise taxes or close loopholes. The Times went on to argue passionately in defense of tax loopholes that benefit gold bullion dealers. "After considering the repeal of preferences, the Legislature should concentrate on spending cuts," threatened the Times. "This is not tax-party time. Legislators need to keep that in mind, particularly legislators up for re-election in November."

In spite of their heated arguments in defense of the wealthy, the Seattle Times is far from the greatest threat. Dozens of corporate lobbyists will be working diligently behind to scenes to reduce the size and scope of Hunter's bill. It's worth $363 million now, but the odds are good that it will represent a smaller total by the time it winds its way through the legislative process -- if it survives at all.

Some will argue HB 3176 goes too far, many others will argue it should go farther. But the truth is, HB 3176 is the first honest attempt at trimming back some loopholes in a long, long time -- and it should be celebrated as such.

For all WFSE members who have wondered why their wages are going backward while special-interest tax loopholes proliferate, HB 3176 is a bill we can get behind. So urge your legislators to support HB 3176. It's a long-overdue step in the right direction. -- Dennis

Republican Response to Gov. Gregoire

Sen. Linda Evans Parlette (R-Wenatchee) gave the Republican response to Gov. Gregoire's address. Sen. Parlette said the state should be contracting out more services and criticized the Governor for renegotiating state worker contracts. "Employers and employees in the private sector are making sacrifices," said Sen. Parlette, "we in the public sector should share in the sacrifices as well."



-- Dennis

Gov. Gregoire's State Of the State Address

Governor Chris Gregoire gave her state of the state speech today, and for WFSE members it was a somber message. The following are a few excerpts that jumped out at me.

"In all corners of our state, families are struggling to survive the great recession. These people are good people. People who have always worked and now for the first time are filing for unemployment... The loss of jobs has created a ripple effect through social service agencies and the economy... For all these struggling families, we have a duty this session to rebuild the economic future of Washington."

"Washington families and businesses are cutting back and trying to do things smarter as they make do with less. Government must be smarter and more efficient as well... Like businesses today, we are cutting costs, reducing staffing and increasing efficiency by consolidating back-office support services like the motor pool, property management and technology. Now is the time to create a lean and effective government."

"Now is the time to have the courage to close institutions that may be an important fixture in a community, but are no longer cost effective, or whose services are no longer needed or can more effectively be provided elsewhere. I am asking you to close all or part of 10 state institutions. But we have more work to do, and this session will test our mettle.

First, I propose to close, or partially close, five correctional facilities. By more efficiently using the beds we have, we can save $65 million over four years, and not release a single offender prior to his or her earned release date. Further, I am requesting that we close two of our residential centers and provide the residents better care in our communities. In the 1970s, we had six state institutions serving 4,000 people. Today, with only one fewer, we serve 900. And finally I’m asking us to reduce the size of three juvenile institutions.

The last time the state closed an institution was in the 1970s. Now is the time — this session — for us to demonstrate, as difficult as it is, that Washington state government makes good business decisions, not political ones."

"Finally, rebuilding our future means we need to make sure our families are safe. We have been making progress. Our communities are safer today because we gave members of law enforcement the help they asked for in dealing with sex offenders. They have done an admirable job. Last year, more than 28,000 address verification visits were made, resulting in more than 800 arrests for failure to register and 1,700 arrests made on other warrants."

"These are serious days ahead. Too many families today are getting layoff notices. Watching unpaid bills pile up. Losing health care. Telling their kids they can’t attend college. Standing in line at the food bank. Or dipping into a dwindling savings account just to get by. Let’s not waste their time or the crisis... It is not going to be easy. The decisions we have to make will not always be popular. But we have a duty to our struggling families and businesses to help build a bright future for Washington."

You can see the Governor's speech for yourself. [Note: Scroll ahead about 35 minutes.]



-- Dennis

Waiting For the Storm To Hit

Tomorrow morning the Governor will reveal her budget proposal. The Governor is constitutionally obligated to submit a balanced budget -- based on existing revenues -- prior to the Legislative Session. With revenues plunging, we are all going to see what almost $3 billion in cuts looks like -- and it's going to be bad.

The problem is exacerbated because most of the state budget is "off limits." That means certain unprotected areas of the budget are going to have to bear the cuts. Fortunately, our friends at the WA St Budget & Policy Center are here to give us an idea of what this really means:

"Primarily as a result of the recession, Washington State, like most states, is now facing a large deficit ($2.6 billion). As we pointed out in our recent slideshow on the state economic and fiscal outlook, most of the budget is off-limits to cuts. This means that an all-cuts budget would require elimination of entire programs and services.

A new presentation by the Senate Ways and Means Committee staff provides more detail on this issue. They estimate that only $7.7 billion of the state budget is vulnerable to cuts in the coming session, with programs that provide economic security for lower income Washingtonians being especially exposed.

They break down the $7.7 billion into three categories: 1) timing (nearly $10 billion will already be spent by the time the new budget is signed), 2) legal restrictions such as state constitutional requirements, federal law, and debt and pension obligations, and 3) strings attached to the federal recovery funds."


"The graph below breaks down the vulnerable part of the budget into program areas:"


"They also provide a possible scenario (see table below) to illustrate what $2.6 billion in cuts could mean. It includes elimination of financial aid, the Basic Health Plan, in-home services for clients with long-term care needs or developmental disabilities, and money that is used to equalize school funding between rich and poor districts."

We will all see first-hand tomorrow morning why an all-cuts approach is both unrealistic and irresponsible. After that it will be up to us to fight for what is right.

-- Dennis

Understanding the State's Fiscal Crisis

Last week's announcement that the state budget deficit facing lawmakers in January had grown to $2.6 billion is staggering. It's hard to even comprehend the magnitude of the deficit, let along how and why we got here.

Fortunately, the good folks at the WA St Budget & Policy Center have put together a 12-minute slide show, complete with audio, to explain it all for us.

[Note: Click on the green “play” button on the bottom to begin the narrated slide show. The large black arrow on the right-hand side just skips forward to the second slide.]

A Balanced Approach

View more presentations from Remy Trupin.

-- Dennis

Labor vs. the Democrats?!?!?

A recent article in the Seattle Times raised, once again, the issue of the labor movement's unhappiness with the Democrats in Olympia. The Times then followed up with an editorial criticizing labor's "kamikaze effort."

As you might imagine, I have a number of strong opinions about this topic. Yet there is nothing I could compose that would be as articulate or effective as what our old friend David Groves at the WA St Labor Council had to say. Here is what Dave wrote:

"...[A Seattle Times] editorial was written regarding last week's Times story reporting that unions are not contributing to Democratic campaign funds because of unhappiness over the party leaders' agenda and performance in Olympia. The editorial suggests this 'is a kamikaze effort that works against the interests of the Democratic Party and the workers of Washington.' It goes on to point out that labor's legislative agenda -- from restoring unemployment benefits cut in 2003 to the passage of the Worker Privacy Act -- are misguided. That the conservative Seattle Times editorial board opposes labor's legislative agenda is nothing new. What is new here is the Times' concern about the Democrats' re-election prospects. As blogger David Goldstein points out, 'nobody is a bigger supporter of the Democratic Party than the Bush/Rossi/McGavick/ Reichert/Hutchison endorsing Times.'

Feel free to disagree with the WSLC's new political strategy -- which, as outlined here, is essentially to support legislators who support labor, as opposed to party organizations. Feel free to disagree with delegates representing WSLC's affiliated unions, who unanimously approved a convention resolution for the WSLC to make no campaign contributions in 2009 to anyone. Feel free to disagree that labor has a right to be upset after what happened in the last legislative session. But ask yourself this: to what extent is the Democratic Party entitled to labor contributions? We're talking about the withholding of contributions -- not a political attack or the funding of opponents -- the withholding of money. And it is being described as a 'kamikaze effort' that one former party chairman calls a 'strategy of self-destruction.' Who is threatening who here?

Meanwhile, we can't wait to read The Seattle Times exposés on the Sierra Club only contributing to pro-environment candidates or NARAL only supporting pro-choice candidates."

The Seattle Times' patronizing editorial aside, this isn't exactly a new story. The Puget Sound Buiness Journal reported back in May that labor was outraged with actions taken by the Legislature during the 2009 session. "Labor and other groups knew this session would be rough," wrote Deirdre Gregg, "given the scale of the budget shortfall. One thing that particularly frustrated labor was that bills with no price tag to the state — such as labor-friendly changes to unemployment insurance — also stumbled."

State workers, in particular, took a pounding this past session -- both in the budget as well as on policy issues. On one hand we understand elected officials have a right -- even a responsibility -- to do what they think is best regardless of whether or not WFSE members agree with their decision. On the other hand, we look pretty foolish if we continue to support elected officials that clearly have a different set of values than we do. [Note: Seven months later, as state revenues fall further into the red, some powerful voices in the Democratic caucuses are content to continue an all-cuts budget approach into the future.]

Naturaly, the rift between labor and legislative Democrats has incited some debate out in the blogosphere. The Northwest Progressive Institute argued "this change in support is a good object lesson for Washington's elected officials: If you take your supporters for granted, you may pay the price come election time." Meanwhile, the Washington Technology Industry Association thinks "the unions are the biggest bullies around" and "it is well known that you have to suck up to labor to get their endorsements and money and they will lord it over you if you are not with them 100% of the time."

Of course, the most provacative response is from Piper Scott at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation: "Well, all I can say to this effort by WSLC is PA-LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE do it! And the sooner the better...Pa-leeeezzze, pa-leeeeeze, pa-leeeeze, pa-leeeze, pa-leeze! What a great way for them to marginalize their influence and free many in the Legislature from being under labor's domineering thumb!"

For the record, WFSE supports what the WA St Labor Council is doing. We have contributed to DIME PAC. And the WFSE Executive Board also adopted a resolution withholding support and contributions from any candidates or candidate committees for the time being.

The Seattle Times, the high tech industry, the EFF, and the other anti-union voices out there are all missing the real point. Labor is adapting and modernizing its political program: We are refocusing to ensure our endorsement and support is based on issues, not parties -- and that our support is more meaningful than ever. Certainly no strategy is flawless. But I think the labor movement is headed in the right direction.

-- Dennis

Get Your Ballots In Today!

It's election day. Whether you vote by mail or vote at a poll site, today is the day to get 'er done. Remember: Only you can stop Tim Eyman.


-- Dennis

Stephen Colbert Tackles the Tough Issues Raised By R71

I get all my news from the Comedy Channel. It's more accurate and more balanced than the garbage the networks churn out.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Don't Ask Don't Tell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Religion

-- Dennis