Am I wrong, or has the activity level on the site dried up in the past several days? Has the discussion of the "children" of 695 moved to other locations? Is it just the holiday? If the interest is gone, at what point will the site be shut down?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 27, 1999

Answers

I believe it's the holiday. Things are only getting started, far from drying up.

-- carolyn (badgeer@aol.com), November 28, 1999.

Don't worry dbvz, Just because all of us are enjoying our holiday, this site shouldn't be turned off. Say, Haven't you figured out that maybe people are tired of your opposition. Maybe you should contribute good ideas toward tax reform rather than be against those who wish to see proper representation for their taxes. Take a break. Go eat some Turkey!

-- Mr. Bill (bspencer@kalama.com), November 28, 1999.

Mr. Bill:

I had an excellent Thanksgiving Day, and ate more turkey than I should have. Thank you for that thoughtful comment.

Dealing with all the bad ideas on this site takes more time than it should away from other, more important things.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 29, 1999.

It looks like more than a Thanksgiving Day drop in interest. I repeat my questions. Will this just die if no comments are submitted for a week?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 09, 1999.

I will post a comment or question weekly if it will keep the forum from being closed.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

Websites, in my experience, are pretty low maintenance. Why the concern, d? Do you DESIRE it to be shut down? Or do you desire it NOT be shut down? If nobody logs on, it would seem the marketplace of public opinion would say it has out lived it's purpose. The few diehards would then decide if they wanted to talk to each other, or just do something else.

zowie- Who's been fairly busy protesting the protesters. And thinks Paul Schell is an idiot, and EXTREMELY fortunate that he got by with a mere $20 million in damages and loss of sales with nobody killed or seriously injured.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 10, 1999.

Hey 'd' yep I bet the interest in 695 is slowing down right now for two reasons.

1.Santa Claus is coming to town. 2.There is no activity in the lawsuits.

Now as Zowie said, websites are low maintenance. An Automatic forum is ZERO maintenance. It would take more work to get rid of the website than to just let it exist in limbo!!

And Zowie while you are taking aim at Paul Schell (well-deserved) take a few shots at Mark Sidran. After all, he is the one who is running the Seattle Machine..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 10, 1999.

Since we are down to about a half page of active threads, and about 10 readers/writers, I am feeling like this is now of little value. The item I am most interested in, Son of 695, is not getting any discussion or new information from the proponents. That may be good, if they are reconsidering the idea or the content. That may be bad, if they don't want to discuss what they are doing and why. I had hope this forum would help prevent some of the drafting errors that caused problems with 695.

I will check in to see if more happens here regarding the Son(s?) of 695, but nothing else seems to be of much interest to me or anyone else.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 11, 1999.

d,

I am suprised that you have come to the conclusion that only 10 people *read* the forum. Not everyone feels the need to post.

You made no comment regarding State Auditor Brian Sonntag's call for "Alliance for Accountability," in an earlier thread. Sonntag's proposal is a comprehensive performance review of state government operations. Had Lawmaker's put this in to practice anytime since he first proposed it six years ago, I-695 may have not been approved.

Do you support this endeavor? Or are you against Citizens having input into Government function and spending?

This proposal could defuse taxpayer anger, and hurt the "SON" initiative. I should think that would have been reason enough for you to comment.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 11, 1999.

Marsha:

Who can be against good government? I support audits, by the State Auditor or an outside consultant, when they are needed. Some here have seemed to indicate they consider such outside review a waste of public funds; since the agency already hires a manager who is presumed to be competent, or should be replaced. Such audits are not cheap, even when done by the State Auditor, and that is a charge that reduces the funds available to actually do the job of the agency. So I will ask you, how much outside review is enough? Financial and legal audits are done now, at least annually. Should performance audits be done as frequently, or more frequently; and should only the State Auditor do it, or should an agency be free to hire a professional consulting firm that knows something about how the service is provided in other states or private enterprise?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 11, 1999.

d, My understanding is the performance audit/reviews will be done with citizen input and involvement. Have you read the articles mentioned by myself and Craig? In light of the latest Olympian article: *Report, State needs more welfare staff*, performance reviews need to be done with citizen involvement.

http://news.theolympian.com/stories/19991211/SouthSound/15600.shtml

d, you may be happy with the staus quo, but most of us are not. Changes are needed in the way our Governments operate. I look forward to the day you get on board and try to make a meaningfull contribution to this effort, as I think you will be an asset. Why would you do that? Because sooner or later you will realize your energy would be better spent guiding instead of disputing.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 12, 1999.

Marsha:

I thought I was agreeing with you. If I was disputing anything, it was with those who see the performance audit as a waste of tax money. You did not answer the questions. How much outside review is enough, and how much of an agency budget should be devoted to that process? Citizen review of the product is important, but much of this work is done by consultants or professionals who don't work cheap.

As for "guiding instead of disputing", I have been doing that for 25 years. It is the nature of this forum to focus on the issues we disagree on. The fact that these disputes are essentially unproductive is why I am losing interest.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 12, 1999.

d,

The difference between what audits occur now and what is being proposed, is citizen input and involvement. This is IMO what is needed. The costs do not neccessarily need to be much more than what they currently are and the impact could be enormous. As for how much outside review is enough, the proposal is for the "Alliance for Accountability," to be ongoing. Maybe some of the work done by Consultants and Professionals will become uneccessary.

Am I to assume then that there IS a possibility in your mind that perhaps our State Government may not be as efficient as it could/should be, and that you opposed I-695 only for the way it dealt with lowering taxes?

If that is the case, then by what means would you lower taxes, control waste, and cut spending, since the majority of voters felt "over taxed?"

In other words, if you had the chance, with 20/20 hindsight, and could propose an alternative to I-695, what would it be? I don't recall ever seeing you dispute I-695 with some sort of suggested alternative. You criticised it with out offering up an alternative. I realize it is now a mute point, but for future tax cutting measures, if the voters feel it is neccessary, how should it be undertaken? Keep in mind, it would need to be done under the present taxing situation, with no implementation of an income tax.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 12, 1999.

Marsha:

Actually, I did respond to this on some threads. I believe the initiative process should not have been used as it was in the case of 695. If people became as involved in the issues and candidates as they were with the initiative, the councils and legislature would have "gotten the message" or been voted out of office. My suggestion was to defeat 695 because it was poorly written, bad law, and had unintended consequences; and put the effort into legislative change. If that did not achieve the desired result, an initiative that requires the legislature to enact the desired change within a year should be proposed. All that is moot, since the voters have already approved the initiative, but that is a brief outline of a change process that preserves the responsibility and authority of the elected officials, and should help prevent adoption of proposals that create the kind of problems 695 will produce. That would not satisfy those who want a quick fix, but we didn't get where we are overnight.

I believe the state and many local governments can and should be more effective, efficient, and accountable. I also know that many local governments are already very effective, efficient, and accountable. I objected to 695 and Son of 695, because they don't distinguish between those that are and those that aren't. It just cuts, and in some areas the cuts are in fat and in others it is in muscle and bone. I also believe we will not like living in Washington in ten years, if the measure of political leadership becomes how much a politician can cut taxes and programs.

As for performance audits, those that are most effective require experienced professionals along with public oversight. A citizens committee may be unable to adequately evaluate some of the operational issues, without the help of experts. Significant change must impact operational issues, and without expert advice the scope of the audit will likely be marginal improvements. The issue I raised is whether the experts the committee uses are the staff of the agency (suspect for defending the current system), State Auditor staff members (not expert in the agency operations and still suspect as state employees) or outside consultants (at about twice the cost per hour). In any event, whatever time is used to study the operation is a cost that is not delivering the service of the agency.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 13, 1999.