Progressive Thinking

This week Senator Kathleen Vinehout writes about the importance of citizen involvement in the budget process. She provides background about the budget process and urges people to attend hearings, to write, call or send an email.

MADISON - “What people need to understand is that we are seeing this budget for the first time,” the Republican staff member told me. “There are a lot of things that need to change.”

Recently the Governor made public his proposal for the state’s two-year budget. The day following his speech a Senate page brought around a hand-truck load of budget documents.

When I visited my Republican Senate colleague, the staff had budget papers spread out over a desk and were trying to make sense of it – even as phone calls and emails from constituents were coming in.

As we scramble to find buried details, some constituents already were expressing themselves to lawmakers. The back-and-forth between constituents and legislators is a vital aspect of the political process, and input from citizens is never more important than during the two-year budget process.

We all know the headlines: $300 million cut to the UW; cutting the UW loose from state government; lower funding for K-12 schools; statewide subsidy for private schools; state money to make a small dent in rising property taxes.

But it will take months to identify all the specifics.

That’s where you come in. It’s one thing to see a number on a page. It is quite another to understand the effect of a budget action across the state.

This budget, like in the past, contains hundreds of pages of non-fiscal policy. Said another way, the budget makes law changes unrelated to the money in a budget.

In the last budget, nearly 100 separate pieces of non-fiscal policy were passed. Some were things that might not have passed on their own – like taking away local powers to site TV and cell phone towers or to set protections from erosion on construction sites.

Time and partisanship further complicate our ability to find and react to pieces of the large budget bill. The only documents now available for lawmakers and the public are the summary prepared by the Governor’s own partisan budget staff and the budget legal language itself in over 1,500 pages.

We all must wait for the work of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB). Analysts are working hard to prepare a plain language summary of the budget including numbers and policy. The work is complex and time consuming. When finished, the summary will be nearly 500 pages. This document is the best single source about details that will affect citizens’ lives for the next two and a half years – sometimes much longer.

As I learn information I will share details in columns and letters. I will hunt down details to put budget policy and fiscal changes in context. I will ask for LFB memos to provide a nonpartisan verified source. But LFB won't always be able to put answering my requests for data at the top of their to-do list.

After the LFB finishes its analysis of the budget, they begin writing memos covering details of the many budget decisions the Joint Finance Committee will ponder. These papers are very useful. Members of the Finance Committee will have first crack at getting LFB to answer their questions (I am not on this committee).

During April I expect the Finance Committee to hold public hearings around the state. These hearings are often held during the day and can be a long drive away. I will be holding town hall meetings about the budget at more convenient times and locations.

Please take the time to learn how the state budget affects you and your family. I will make my town hall meeting locations public. If you want a personal invitation, let me know (877-763-6636).

Please express your opinions about the budget. Write, call, send an email – let your representatives know. Don’t let past disagreements stop you from writing again.

Only about 20% of people contact their representative. But sometimes only one or two letters can change a bill. Telling your story about how budget decisions affect you and your community can make a real difference.

“If there were just 10 people in every congressional district who really pushed on an issue…we could literally change the world.” – Illinois Senator Paul Simon

MADISON - The Governor’s speech last night was long on campaign-speak and light on details.

What specifics we learned mean a tough road ahead for local schools, the UW and our children who will inherit increased state debt.

Taking the cap off private schools getting state dollars means less money for our public schools. Property taxes will go up in many parts of the state as schools hobble from referendum to referendum.

The twin actions of cutting UW funds and cutting the UW loose will mean fewer opportunities and higher tuition for students.

Professors who leave the system take their grant money with them- leaving fewer resources for student research and fewer professors mean students don’t have courses they need to graduate in four years.

Once a big part of state government - like the UW - is cut loose, strong constituencies will fight to keep it private. We are at risk of losing the central focus of our ‘public’ universities – to serve the public.

In this budget the Governor learned you can’t give money away and then have that money to pay bills. The election year ‘surplus’ quickly turned into red ink. Now, Wisconsin doesn’t have money to pay important bills - like the UW system and local schools.

This week Senator Kathleen Vinehout writes about the Governor’s proposed cuts to the University of Wisconsin. These cuts, if passed by the Legislature, will have a significant negative impact on staff, faculty and ultimately students.

MADISON - “I love college, Mom,” my son told me. “There is nowhere else I can hear a conversation in a different language every day.”

My son got me thinking about the challenges our students face – competing in a global marketplace, changes in the economy, changes in technology. College has never been so important. Keeping colleges up-to-date costs money.

Getting one’s children through college is harder. Finding the right mix of rigor and value is a real challenge for families.

Wisconsin universities stand out for value. Over and over again UW-Eau Claire and UW-La Crosse rank as two of the best values in the Midwest.

UW-Madison is a world-class research institution. The UW comprehensive campuses statewide are the cultural heart of communities large and small; where would River Falls or Menomonie be without the UW at the center of the city?

A new proposal from the Governor would make deep cuts to the UW, dropping state support – in actual dollars - to below 1997-98 funding levels. The Governor also proposed loosening public control over the UW. The twin actions of cutting funds & cutting the university loose from the state are a recipe for disaster.

The last foray into cutting loose a part of state government – the Department of Commerce – didn’t work well for the Governor. Once a big part of state government is cut loose, its central focus is not on serving the public interest.

The constituency for keeping the university system apart from the state will be so strong it will not be possible to bring the system back. And those constituencies fighting to keep the system separate have private not public goals. Say “good-bye” to the Wisconsin Idea.

The rationale for cutting UW support is to make the system more efficient. Sure, efficiencies are important. But the reduction proposed by the Governor - $300 million over two years – will cut one quarter of current state spending.

And this year’s state funding for the UW is already lower than six years ago.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Wisconsin is one of only six states that continued to cut higher education funding per student by more than 2% following the Great Recession (adjusted for inflation and using data from Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14).

Over the last decade and a half, state support for the UW has been modest at best. For example, FY 2012 funding fell below FY 2001. Increasing education costs were shifted to steady increases in tuition. Reacting to parents’ concerns, the Governor and Legislative Leaders froze tuition. Other states froze tuition - but many also increased state funding. Not so for Wisconsin.

“Teach more classes,” the Governor said. But teaching more classes and “becoming more efficient” won’t absorb the proposed cuts. Cutting one out of every four state dollars is cutting too deep. As a consequence professors will leave Wisconsin.

The best and brightest on our campuses are not tied to Wisconsin. They are tied to their discipline – be it mathematics or biology. A local businessman once told me, “All jobs are mobile.” Professors are definitely mobile.

Once the best and brightest begin to leave (I’ve been told this is already happening) morale plummets. As more professors find new academic homes they take with them not only their expertise and international reputation - they take their federal grants.

Without federal grants UW loses another big source of funds. (Federal money, including student loans now account for more than a quarter of the UW budget.)

The Governor’s proposed actions place the UW in a downward spiral: less state money, a lock on rising tuition, loss of top faculty, declining federal money, loss of the world-class reputation. The consequences of disinvestment will take generations to recover.

Public universities are just that – “public”. Public universities are supported by the people and serve the people. Wisconsin has steadily eroded state support for the UW. We should be doing just the opposite.

Our public universities are a catalyst for the creative culture that builds the great places in which we all want to live, work, play and start a new business. They are well worth our investment.

This week Sen. Kathleen Vinehout talks about the Government Accountability Board (GAB), the agency set up to police the politicians. Governor Walker and the Republicans would like to shut it down, but an Audit Hearing shows path to improved operation.

MADISON - “I’m not a clerk. I’m just a citizen who observed several recounts and recalls,” Bill Wasser of Reedsburg told the Audit Committee. “Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let’s make some changes and make it work.”

Mr. Wasser responded to some lawmakers who threatened to dismantle the Government Accountability Board (GAB). The state agency oversees elections, campaign finance, lobbying and ethics.

One of the lawmakers intent on dismantling the nonpartisan agency is Assembly Speaker Robin Vos who told reporters the GAB “will not exist in its current form much longer.”

At the recent public hearing many local elected officials from across the state testified in support of the GAB. The work of the Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) confirmed what clerks were saying: GAB staff members were consistent and inventive in training and supporting clerks during a tumultuous time in Wisconsin’s history.

During the study period of the audit, the GAB dealt with several lawsuits; an on-again-off-again photo voter ID law; a historical number of recall elections; a statewide judicial race recount; redrawing of legislative district lines and the passage of 31 separate pieces of legislation affecting operations and elections.

Local clerks run elections with support from the GAB. Auditors found the GAB used innovative ways to administer training to clerks and election workers. Webinars and on-line resources provided in-office training. Many clerks testified GAB staff were quick to return phone calls and spent a great deal of time assisting clerks on the phone and at professional gatherings.

Through random unannounced visits to polling places, GAB staff evaluated accessibility of local polling places. There are more than 2,600 polling places in Wisconsin.

Auditors documented the GAB identified more than 10,000 issues related to accessibility. About a third were considered “high-severity,” most concerned accessible entrances and voting booths. GAB staff helped clerks in remedies to assist disabled voters including using federal money to purchase local supplies.

The Presidential Commission on Election Administration lauded the accessibility audits of Wisconsin as a model of best practices for the nation.

Problems do exist at the GAB. During the study period, auditors reported on many legally required tasks that were either not completed or completed late. GAB officials countered that short staffing and an unusually high workload required managers to prioritize tasks. A new, complex administrative rule-making process increased the time needed to promulgate required administrative rules.

Auditors documented several administrative rules needed, including election laws and penalty schedules. In addition, the GAB didn’t post all of their advisory opinions, (minus the confidential information) on their website. Turned in late by GAB staff, for example, were audits of electronic voting equipment.

Several operational problems were identified by the audit. For example, GAB staff had no written procedures for assessing penalties on lobbyists nor did they have procedures or adequate tracking for reviewing election complaints. Auditors documented a long history of the agency not establishing procedures for complaints.

Complicating the work of auditors this summer was an Attorney General’s opinion that shielded about 70% of complaints to the GAB from the eyes of auditors. For committee members, the lack of access to records was disconcerting.

Lawmakers worked quickly to remedy the problem. Recently Audit Committee members voted unanimously to clarify the law allowing LAB auditors access to all GAB records. This legislation is expected to speedily make its way through the legislative process.

GAB officials supported the bill to allow auditors complete access to records.

Officials also explained to lawmakers the staffing problems facing the agency. Almost two-thirds of positions are funded with temporary federal grants. Strings on this money limit what tasks staff can do. The GAB asked lawmakers to convert these positions to state funded positions as far back as 2011. In 2013 the agency asked for 6 additional state positions. None of these requests were granted.

Unless authorization from the state is provided, some staff won’t be able to work past the end of June. I am currently drafting legislation to resolve this problem.

To me, this case looks like starving the patient, complaining the patient won’t eat and then killing the patient.

The Wisconsin Assembly's Education Committee is considering of a bill that would convert local public schools to private ‘independent charter’ schools all in the name of “accountability”.  There is little evidence that such a move produces superior results, but investment does as we learn from countries with high performing schools.

MADISON - “Edgar: All right, everybody; back to the scene of the crime.

“Ella: New clues?

“Carol: What clues?

“Bob: What’s the next clue?

“Carol: I don’t have a clue.

“Norman: (At the window box, dramatically.) Guys, the body’s gone!”

So goes the hilarious comedy written by Craig Sodaro and performed by Alma students. The play begins as a murder mystery dinner invitation and ends wrapped up in an international smuggling ring.

Students spent the last three and a half months practicing lines and preparing costumes. Play Director Tom Brakke coordinated a cast of roughly a quarter of Alma’s Middle and High Schoolers with precious few resources. He even directed students to buy up half-priced dresses and police uniforms at After-Halloween-Sales.

The work shows. The fast-paced comedy pulled in record crowds at the rural high school. Teens of all ages delivered their lines flawlessly and kept everyone entertained.

I took in the show on a brief break. I couldn’t help but see parallels between the confusion of the dinner guests and the lines delivered at a recent Assembly Education Committee hearing.

While the students were putting final touches on the performance, the Assembly Education Committee was considering how to turn local public schools into ‘independent charter’ schools.

In what was described as the “worst run hearing in Capitol history”, the author of the bill began by saying he was changing it but he didn’t know exactly how. The bill’s main component – an unelected, unaccountable, politically appointed board – would not be in the final version.

Nevertheless, the chair was committed to quickly passing the bill through the full Assembly. Committee members were incensed a bill that didn’t really exist was being rushed and asked if there would be another public airing before its final vote. The answer was ‘no’.

The bill was numbered Assembly Bill 1 to signify its importance. Proponents explained the bill would force schools to be ‘accountable’. Critics, and there were many, described the bill as ‘stripping powers from locally elected school boards’, using different tests for public and publically-funded private schools, reducing aid for every public school, and creating a board with power to decide if schools should be converted to privately run charter schools operated by a company headquartered in, say, Texas or California.

The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) testified there have been no fewer than 7 laws passed in the last 6 years requiring schools to test students and publically report performance. The DPI testified the bill would “trigger sanctions” on roughly one of every 8 state students and move about a sixth of state aid away from public schools.

A day before the “I Don’t Have A Clue” hearing, the Senate Education Reform Committee Chair released another version. This bill created 2 unelected, unaccountable boards to run schools – one housed in DPI; the other, for taxpayer funded private schools, housed in the Department of Administration (yes, they administer things, but schools aren’t yet on their list).

All this makes no sense unless you understand that private school interest groups, not good public policy, are driving the agenda. Some legislators try to appease the many private school groups. Instead, we should look at what research tells us about high-performing schools and how they got that way.

First, there is no consistent evidence that converting a public school to an independent charter school will produce superior results.

Second, top-performing schools got that way because of an investment. Across countries with well-performing schools, needy students and remote locations garnered more resources. Schools followed a rigorous curriculum; paid teachers and educated them well; tests were tied to the curriculum and measured critical thinking; and everyone – students, teachers and parents, took school seriously.

I spoke with a local school board member about the Assembly hearing. “I felt hopeful,” she told me. “There are so many grassroots groups all over the state and this [threat] could pull them together. We need community conversations about public schools. We need to start now and keep the conversation going.”

That’s good advice. We certainly don’t want our next generation waking up one day asking, “What happened to our local schools?” and hearing, “Guys, the body’s gone!”