I spent all day Monday being a guest speaker at Snohomish High School. My friend Tuck Gionet teaches Economics and Government to high school seniors in all of his five classes. He was gracious enough to allow me to interact with his students as they discussed whether government’s role should be to insure to citizens quality of “opportunity” or “outcome.”
This was the fifth or sixth time for me in Mr. Gionet’s class. It was the first time I spent the day talking about their subject matter rather than focusing on my candidacy for office. My assignment was to work into the discussion my political perspective without actually campaigning. Mr. Gionet and I did not tell the kids in advance too much about my political persuasion, he wanted them to figure out my political point of view based upon my responses to the questions during the discussion. That idea went out the window right away since I couldn’t come up with any applications where government had a role in guaranteeing the outcome of anything.
The students are required to write a paper this week comparing and contrasting the two, declaring a preference for one and then defending the choice. It was clear from the interaction that some had given the assignment some thought already because they asked me good questions. It became clear to the students in every class that I had strong feelings about both sides of the argument.
The most challenging aspect of the day was remembering what part of the subject matter I had discussed with which class. All five classes were doing the same assignment and I wanted to standardize at least a part of my presentation for all of them then launch into the actual discussion with the kids. After you have done your spiel two or three times, you forget whether you shared a particular anecdote that demonstrated a point or not. By the end of the day, my feet were sore, my voice was hoarse and I was really parched. That teaching thing is a tough job!
It’s hard convincing some kids that education is an opportunity rather than a given. We talked about how our state constitution calls for education to be the paramount responsibility of state government. We weren’t so clear about whether it meant the opportunity to get an education or the guarantee that all students would get one. We talked about how some kids put more effort into school work than others and as a result got more out of the experience.
I tried to demonstrate to them that as they get older and encounter choices in their lives the quality of their opportunities will ultimately determine how far they get in life. Most of the kids have so few life experiences they fail to grasp the importance of quality opportunities until they are lost. Many of the kids have been so sheltered from the realities of the world that they already have a sense of entitlement. That distresses me!
In the course of the day, discussions in each class went in a different direction. As a champion for “opportunity” I tried to steer the discussion to the importance of “personal choices” and taking responsibility for them. In a free society, people need the opportunity to choose how hard they are willing to work to achieve a level of success. Government does not have a role in guaranteeing a successful outcome for any segment of society except those individuals with demonstrable handicaps that would prevent them from taking advantage of available opportunities.
The other argument that came up on more than one occasion was the role of government in curtailing opportunity for some when it substantially damaged others. “Ethics” in life and business might be a topic for discussion another day, but Monday the regulatory role of government did not fit with arguments supporting the “opportunities” of capitalism and personal initiative.
No Loss for Words 
Why NOT Disclosing Matters…
by Steve DanaThe editorial in the Everett Herald Tuesday spoke to why the Supreme Court should rule in favor of revealing the names of signers of Initiative and Referendum petitions. Their argument was that it is a “Public Disclosure” issue tied in some way to the Open Government Act of 1972.
I couldn’t disagree more. The Public Disclosure Commission was formed to create public oversight of election financing. The people have a right to know who is paying for campaigns.
The state constitution outlines the mechanics of the initiative process. The number of signatures required is determined by how many voters participated in the last general election where we voted for governor. The Secretary of State is then required to determine whether the signers of the petitions are indeed valid registered voters as outlined in the petition and that enough signatures were collected to meet the numerical threshold requirement.
Where I don’t feel threatened by the prospect of my name being known as a signer of petitions, others may. I have on numerous occasions signed petitions for initiatives that I knew I would vote against if they made it to the ballot. For me, signing the petition is an agreement that the issue should be placed on the ballot, not an endorsement of the content. I would hate to think that by signing a petition I was advertising a particular viewpoint on the issue. I would hate to think that my signature on a petition could be used as a weapon against me or my family.
I believe in the public process that allows us to vote on important issues. Getting those important issues on the ballot is tough enough already. The idea that signers of petitions could be exposed to public harassment in the name of disclosure is just wrong.
I would challenge anyone to offer evidence that the process is compromised in any way by maintaining the privacy of those individuals who signed to give voters a chance to decide.
Absent that evidence, the names on petitions are not relevant and should not be publicized.
I believe in Initiatives and Referendums because they give the public a tool to participate in the legislative process when in their judgment the elected legislative bodies have failed to do so.
The Herald editorial filled four columns with useless drivel. They even referenced the 2004 gubernatorial election; trying to suggest that because a lawsuit was filed challenging the vote count in that election, we should question the process of verifying the authenticity of petition signatures. The Secretary of State and county auditors across the state work hard to maintain voter registration records. The content is changing by the day. At a given point in time, the qualification to vote in a particular election is determined by existing records.
If the Herald wants to criticize the County Auditors for their failure to remove deceased voters or relocated voters from the roles, I won’t argue; but they are suggesting that because of that failure, the identities of petition signers should be made public so the rest of us can properly scrutinize the validity of the names.
Good government is founded upon a system of good processes. Public participation is one of those processes. The public’s business should be conducted in the light of day to insure that it is not corrupt in any way. Extensive effort has been made to accommodate public oversight and participation. I can find no reference to intent or text in the law that would suggest that public oversight in this instance is anything more than monitoring the process of verification.
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Steve Dana Issues | Leave a Comment »