State budget process shrouded from public

GUEST EDITORIAL

OLYMPIA — While there are plenty of things to dislike about the new state operating budget, which took effect July 1, how the spending plan was rammed through Olympia ought to be high on the list for anyone who values open and transparent government.

The 2009 legislative session offered unparalleled opportunities to shine light on the budget-writing process. Public awareness about the historically large budget gap facing lawmakers was high, just when technology has made our state’s legislative process more accessible to the public than ever.

The task of filling the hole created by years of overspending made this the most important session in decades and made the operating budget its most important bill. Yet no budget proposal appeared in either legislative chamber until day 103 of the 105-day session – after majority-party leaders reluctantly ended their efforts to raise taxes and enable more spending.

By then there was no credible opportunity for taxpayers to weigh in. For news reporters covering the Capitol, there was no time to offer a thorough account of the budget proposal to their readers and viewers.

Lawmakers fared little better unless they had been party to the secret talks that resulted in the final proposal. Most House members had less than one day and most Senate members less than two days – between working on other legislation – to examine a $31.4 billion, two-year spending plan.

Because the budget, produced by deals among who knows which special interests, was agreed upon behind closed doors, it moved through the legislative process with rubber-stamp efficiency. Just like that, a 515-page document which didn’t exist 48 hours earlier was headed for the governor’s desk. One day later the session sputtered to a close.

It didn’t have to be this way. Had the majority party merely followed the rules, citizens and news reporters – and lawmakers – could have benefited from a small but welcome dose of openness and transparency.

Senate Rule 45 and House Rule 24 require five days’ notice before committee hearings on legislation. Such notice would let people statewide look at the bill in question, maybe travel to Olympia or contact their lawmakers prior to the hearing, or at least plan to watch it on TVW. However, the majority party ignored those rules. The Senate and House budget proposals were before committees within hours of their unveilings, continuing what has become an unfortunate Olympia tradition.

Rules aside, budget leaders should have grasped that such important budget proposals warranted more transparency, instead of more political maneuvering.

Take the Senate’s new operating budget vice-chairman, who in a fall newsletter to his constituents suggested ways to “promote a thoughtful political dialogue.”  He was positioned perfectly to bring the budget approach more into the light. Yet there he was, during the Senate budget debate, endorsing a process completely inconsistent with his stated interest in a “substantial conversation.”

This lawmaker, who wrote before the session of wanting people to “re-engage…in a more thoughtful discussion” attempted to sell his party’s minimal-engagement approach as a “very methodical, responsible manner.” Who would buy that claim?

A “thoughtful discussion” could look at the disproportionate growth of the General Assistance-Unemployable program or whether the Basic Health Plan has strayed from its original intent or whether pay increases for state employees should hinge on union membership.

A “substantial conversation” about the diversion of $777 million intended for job-creating public-works projects, the siphoning of $80 million from liquor proceeds and the shift of $29 million intended for voter-approved audits of public agency performance – all part of the budget the Legislature passed — would have been enlightening.

There is something citizens and the news media, through its editorial positions, can do: urge the majority to get behind Senate Bill 5186, to require a three-day review period before budget votes. Republicans consider this “budget sunshine” bill so important that when the chance to pull one bill forward for a vote arose on the session’s final day, we chose it, albeit unsuccessfully, because we believe the public, the media and the people’s elected representatives deserve more time to find out how their money is being spent.

Although the reporters covering the Capitol are dwindling in number, they do their best to uphold their watchdog role – but even the best watchdog can’t see in the dark. If a piece of legislation can’t withstand some fresh air and a few days out in the light, maybe it isn’t right for the people of Washington. Given how the new budget appears to set state government up for another financial crisis in two years, if not sooner, the need for sunshine isn’t going away.

Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, has served Washington’s 9th Legislative District for 17 years. He was a longtime member of budget and finance committees in the House of Representatives and has served on the Senate Ways and Means Committee since his election to the Senate in 2004.