Opinion
Page A-4
March 22, 2012
Ritzville Adams County Journal
Focused on Education 6 Combines, cooperatives and mascots By Rob Roettger Lind, Ritzville Superintendent I truly feel blessed to have the opportunity to lead the Lind and Ritzville School Districts during this time of major transition. In my opinion, this is a very exciting time for both districts and communities. I am, however, fully aware that there are many people within our communities who have concerns and are worried about the formation of the academic cooperative. I understand the difficulty some people may have with this major change. I also understand how hard it is to let go of traditions and the way things have always been done. I am also aware that there are not easy answers for many of the issues we face, and many decisions that will be made may upset individuals from one or both communities. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the decisions we make be made for the right reasons. Often times, as difficult as it may be, it is necessary to take the adult factor out of the equation. My belief is that each and every decision should be filtered through the lens of doing what is best for the students of both Lind and Ritzville. The difficult decisions I have mentioned are related to items such as mascots, graduation, joining programs such as FFA, open campus, etc… I truly understand how important these issues are to many people. However, I must admit, these are the types of issues that I wish did not take up the majority of our thoughts or efforts. To be completely honest, I long to spend the majority of my time, and our collective time, working on issues related to teaching and learning. I long to
work on our collective practice in order to improve our educational system for all children. I truly long for the day when we are not worried about what we call our schools or programs, but instead are focusing all of our efforts on classrooms, instruction and what children learn. Combines vs. cooperatives… I believe it is important that we clarify the difference between combining our efforts and creating an academic cooperative. In my mind, a combine, besides being a valuable piece of machinery in Adams County, is when you take two districts and create one. This would be consolidation. Therefore, the correct terminology to describe our work would be the word cooperative. Within a cooperative, two districts work cooperatively (together) and utilize resources from both districts to create learning opportunities for the students of both communities. The word cooperative is synonymous with sharing, working together, and teamwork. To close, in my opinion, throughout this entire process, it is absolutely essential that everyone is willing to compromise and, at times, give a little when necessary. As I have mentioned, the very essence of a “cooperative” is working together. Therefore, I urge us all to focus on the big picture. I encourage everyone to think of the opportunity we have before us (cooperatively) to create the best possible school system for the children of both communities. As always, if you have any questions related to the academic cooperative, or any other educational issue, please contact me by email at rroettger@lind.k12.wa.us or rroettger@ritzville.wednet.edu or at 677-3481 or 659-1660.
Don Brunell 6 Washington’s health insurance exchange: paying more for less By Don C. Brunell President, Association of Washington Business When you talk about state health insurance exchanges, people’s eyes glaze over. (See, it’s happening right now). The subject seems far too complicated and confusing. But we need to talk about them because, as you read this, state bureaucrats in Olympia are making decisions that will affect the cost and availability of your health care benefits. Your insurance company isn’t taking part in the state exchange? It doesn’t matter. The rules will still affect your choices and your costs. State exchanges are a creature of the federal health care law. They were created to distribute federal subsidies for qualified enrollees and establish how insurers would do business under the new health care law. State exchanges fall into two types: open market and active purchaser. Open market exchanges emphasize competition and consumer choice. For example, in Utah’s exchange, insurers compete side-by-side on an interactive staterun website, allowing people to select from a broad variety of plans, coverage levels and prices. The consumer simply answers online
questions about their income and the size and makeup of their family, and the website presents the viewer with a variety of plans that meet those needs. The consumer makes the final decision. An active purchaser exchange requires the state to contract with health insurers to provide coverage. The Massachusetts model is an example of an active purchaser exchange. Washington is adopting a model closer to the active purchaser model, one that emphasizes state control. The federal health care law contains a host of measures to protect consumers, guarantee access to health care and spread financial risk. But Washington’s exchange goes far beyond the federal law. For example, participation in state exchanges was supposed to be voluntary, ensuring that consumers could choose among insurers operating inside and outside the exchange. Not so in Washington. Consider this: Some insurers focus on serving niche markets, such as providing lower-cost catastrophic policies that cover only major health care expenditures. But state bureaucrats have decided that insurers who sell those plans to young adults in Washington will be able to do so only through the exchange — they are banned from selling those plans on the open market. Why would bureaucrats force
these insurers into the exchange? Money. State exchanges will be costly to operate, especially if billions in promised federal subsidies don’t materialize. Because healthy young adults most often purchase catastrophic policies, state bureaucrats want to force those low risk consumers into the exchange so their premiums can subsidize the other higher risk participants. Another rule in Washington’s exchange could further limit choice for consumers in our state. Even though the exchange doesn’t apply to them, insurers that specialize in health plans for large employers and associations must change their business model and start offering three tiers of plans to either small groups or individuals — markets for which they have no desire, no experience, no expertise and no products. Not surprisingly, these extreme intrusions into the marketplace will convince some of the few remaining insurers in Washington that it’s time to leave the state, further reducing choice and competition. Of course, all this will change if Gov. Gregoire heeds calls to veto the two offending sections of the exchange legislation. Without that veto, Washington’s health insurance exchange will mean loss of coverage, fewer choices, less competition and higher prices.
MCFADDEN PUBLISHING LLC; C. STEPHEN MCFADDEN, PUBLISHER & EDITOR mcfadden@ritzvillejournal.com Phone (509) 659-1020 • Fax (509) 659-0842 e-mail advertising@ritzvillejournal.com KATELIN DAVIDSON, News Editor katelin@ritzvillejournal.com
LAVONNE SAUNDERS, Accounting saunders@ritzvillejournal.com
JENNIFER SAUNDERS Webmaster
JANIS ROUNTREE, Customer Service janis@ritzvillejournal.com
DALE ANDERSON Sports Columnist
DON SAUNDERS Circulation
The Journal – USPS 466-620 – is entered as second class matter at the post office, Ritzville, Washington 99169 under theAct of Congress, March 1, 1887. Published weekly on Thursday morning at 216 West Railroad Avenue, Ritzville, Washington 99169 by McFADDEN PUBLISHING LLC Official newspaper for the City of Ritzville, the Town of Lind and the County of Adams. Member newspaper of the Washington Newspaper Publishers’ Association and the National Newspaper Association. Nationally represented by the American Newspaper Representatives. Publishers’ Liability for Error The publishers shall not be liable for slight changes or typographical errors that do not lessen the value of an advertisement. The publishers’ liability for other errors or omissions in connection with an advertisement is strictly limited to publication of the advertisement in any subsequent issue or the refund of any monies paid for the advertisement. The publisher shall not be liable for misrepresentation of facts or claims in advertising.
Letters to the Editor 6
Can citizens afford cost of repairs?
To the Editor, In late 2010, when asked about the ability of families to pay an additional monthly charge of $16 ($17 with taxes), for the redo of the city sewer system, a council member twice responded by saying, “I don’t know.” We need the money. The mayor was asked at the public meeting on Mar. 14 if the council had considered what the effect on city families might be of an increase in city utilities to pay back a proposed $5.9 million
water issues loan. Mayor Kadlec responded by asking if I wanted to have water come out of the spigot when I turn the handle. It might be unfair to suggest that the mayor and the council do not care about the economic wellbeing of the community members they claim to represent. But there appears to be very little interest in the opportunity costs of their decisions. It does not matter if the current city council solution is both wise and critically essential to “saving” Ritzville if the citizens cannot pay the bill. This city council has not
considered the cost. It has been suggested the increased water bill might be as little as $23 a month. But the increase could easily be $40 a month or more if we consider the track record of the city council’s sewer projects. If the mayor and the city council continue to incur debts and dump them on families and businesses, forcing them to leave Ritzville, there will be no need for water to enter or sewage to leave what appears to be the increasing number of abandoned buildings and homes for sale. Barry Boyer Ritzville
Senator Schoesler
6 Not-so-diplomatic behavior during special session By Sen. Mark Schoesler 9th District (R), Ritzville The first week of the Legislature’s special session was a fairly busy one, but not in the way you might expect. While the Senate and the House of Representatives did not come into regular session for a single minute all week, there was a fair amount of activity outside the Senate chamber – and some less-than-diplomatic behavior from our state’s chief executive. This week’s report will focus on the new budget proposal that is before the Legislature and some of the reaction to it. After I attended today’s pro forma session (meaning the gavel is dropped to open the day’s session, then dropped again to adjourn it to a later time – a formality only) it was time to get on the road for home. A few hours earlier I’d taken a call from two of the editors at the Spokane paper, who were interested in my take on things here at the Capitol, and our conversation naturally touched on the weather. It’s rained plenty in Olympia this week (even some snow Tuesday morning), and the editors said it has been coming down in Spokane too. Considering how dry things have been in Ritzville, I’m hoping some of that rain made it to the farm too! For a dryland wheat farmer, there’s really no such thing as bad rain. Bipartisan Senate coalition presents new, stronger plan… Two weeks ago a bipartisan coalition of senators formed to bring an operating-budget proposal forward and pass it so the Senate could finally begin budget negotiations with the House of Representatives.
None of us portrayed that budget as a perfect plan, but we knew it was a far sight better than what the House Democrats had approved. On March 8, the final day of the 60-day regular legislative session, the House lobbed a new plan over to the Senate. It was pretty much a retread of the Senate Democrat proposal, which had gone nowhere the week before (and was the reason our coalition’s alternative became the official Senate position), so it went nowhere as well. That brings us to yesterday, when members of our bipartisan coalition (including all three of its Senate Democrat members) joined to present a new and improved proposal and call on the House to start serious negotiations toward a final budget agreement. When I say “new and improved,” that’s not a knock on the budget we adopted March 3. It was a good start, but like I say, we knew it was more than anything a starting position for negotiations, and a way to prove that a balanced, responsible state budget could be written without new taxes or major accounting gimmicks. The first Senate budget would have reduced K-12 education funding by about 1/4 of 1 percent (out of about $15.9 billion that goes to public schools in our state, to put it in perspective), without taking dollars out of classrooms – the changes would have been at the state education-office level. The new proposal makes no K-12 reductions at all from the budget adopted in 2011. With two four-year public universities in our legislative district, I am glad the new proposal also maintains funding for higher education at its present level.
In all, the new $30.7 billion Senate proposal raises spending by about 3/10 of 1 percent from the original plan, yet requires no new taxes and would leave a reserve of $437 million – not as much as I would like, but still well ahead of what the latest House budget proposes. When comparing the new Senate proposal with the budget passed by the House, one thing needs to be considered above all else: the Senate budget has the best chance by far of being sustainable during the rest of this budget cycle. In fact, it’s possible based on projections that the next Legislature could have about a half-billion dollars left from this biennium when it begins working on the budget for 2013-15. The House budget, meanwhile, would have the next Legislature coming in to face a $2.1 billion shortfall as it puts the next two-year budget together, according to the non-partisan Washington Research Council. I’m tired of seeing deficit after deficit, because that just means another round of threats to K-12 and higher education and our most vulnerable residents. This new bipartisan Senate plan is an even better position from which to start negotiating with the House. Now we need to those negotiations to get going, so this overtime session can be brought to an end. The governor responds with a temper tantrum Did our governor forget she’s in charge of the executive branch but not the legislative branch? Continued on Page A-9