Liberal and Loving It

Why the Bank Regulations Matter

In most legislation we understand that politics forces trade-offs and those with the most money tend to get their way. So we celebrate the health-care bill we got even though the insurance companies were able to kill single payer, the public option, and Medicare buy-in. We moved forward and as the changes that we did gain are implemented we can adjust and improve. That's politics in a democracy.

But in some cases key issues must be addressed. If they are not, then we face ongoing disasters. For example off-shore wells must be fail safe and regardless of oil company lobbying to save a couple of bucks, we must have regulation that makes this absolute. (And like most laws like this, it is cheaper for the oil companies long term to have this regulation.)

The same holds for regulating the large banks. The FDR Administration put in a series of regulation that dramatically reduced the size and length of recessions. These regulations stood us in good stead until the '80s. Then we had the gradual unraveling starting with allowing the Savings & Loans to run up major debts to their short term advantage, and then left us with the debts when it crashed. This unraveling continued with the culmination being the revocation of Glass-Steagall.

And out of that we got the Great Recession which we are still stuck in. We stopped it from being as bad as the Great Depression, but we're now stuck with 18% true unemployment/underemployment. And the government stimulus is rapidly running out with no more coming, so we could easily see the economy head back down. All of this is due to our present lack of serious effective regulation of the banks.

Here's the key issue we need to face, if we don't bring in real regulation, then the banks will continue to place large bets, keep the profits, leave us with the losses, and continue to drive us into deep recessions. And if we continue to merely pretend to address the core issues, while leaving the banks to fuck with our economy for their short-term profit, they will continue to wreak devastation on the economy and on people's lives.

So where do we sit at present? From Simon Johnson:

More specifically, however, it's not that "people in the same field begin to think alike", but rather that "people who are supposed to regulate" begin to see the world through the eyes of the biggest private sector players. Note, for example – and this is important – most hedge fund managers agree big banks are dangerous and will again mismanage risk in a reckless manner.

...

The people in charge of our strategy towards big banks are not fools and they are not corrupt; they are also not doing things just because someone on Wall Street calls them up. Our top policymakers are simply convinced that what is good for the biggest and most dangerous element on Wall Street is good for the American economy.

This is cultural capture in its purest and most extreme form. It increasingly stands out as a problem both in the US context and around the world. Unfortunately, the White House and Treasury may be the last to realize this.

What's key to the above is that not just the government regulators, but most in Congress, including Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall probably truly believe they are doing the correct thing, while setting us up for regular ongoing deep recessions. We're all just as screwed as if they did it at the behest of the lobbyists, but this probably means it will be much more difficult to get them to vote for effective regulation.

And from Matt Taibbi:

It's early May in Washington, and something very weird is in the air. As Chris Dodd, Harry Reid and the rest of the compulsive dealmakers in the Senate barrel toward the finish line of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act – the massive, year-in-the-making effort to clean up the Wall Street crime swamp – word starts to spread on Capitol Hill that somebody forgot to kill the important reforms in the bill. As of the first week in May, the legislation still contains aggressive measures that could cost once-indomitable behemoths like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase tens of billions of dollars. Somehow, the bill has escaped the usual Senate-whorehouse orgy of mutual back-scratching, fine-print compromises and freeway-wide loopholes that screw any chance of meaningful change.

...

Then reform advocates started reading the fine print of the Lincoln deal, and realized that all those Wall Street lobbyists had really been earning their money.

That same day the GOP amendment failed, the derivatives expert Adam White was at his home in Georgia, poring over a "redline" version of the Lincoln amendment, in which changes to the bill are tracked in bold. When he came to a key passage on page 570, he saw that it had a single line through it, meaning it had been removed. The line read, "Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful to enter into a swap that is required to be cleared unless such swap shall be submitted for clearing."

Translation: It was no longer illegal to trade many uncleared swaps. Wall Street would be free to go on trading these monstrosities by the gazillions, largely in the dark. "Regulators can't say any longer if you don't clear it, it's illegal," says White.

...

Whatever the final outcome, the War for Finance Reform serves as a sweeping demonstration of how power in the Senate can be easily concentrated in the hands of just a few people. Senators in the majority party – Brown, Kaufman, Merkley, even a committee chairman like Lincoln – took a back seat to Reid and Dodd, who tinkered with amendments on all four fronts of the war just enough to keep many of them from having real teeth. "They're working to come up with a bill that Wall Street can live with, which by definition makes it a bad bill," one Democratic aide explained in the final, frantic days of negotiation.

...

The Senate is designed to function as a kind of ongoing negotiation between public sentiment and large financial interests, an endless tug of war in which senators maneuver to strike a delicate mathematical balance between votes and access to campaign cash. The problem is that sometimes, when things get really broken, the very concept of a middle ground between real people and corrupt special interests becomes a grotesque fallacy.

In other words, it started off with the Senate stepping up to insure that banks could no longer devastate the economy for their personal short-term profit. And it ended up with business as usual. And my bet is that after it is through the conference committee, the few good things remaining in the bill will have been emasculated. Yet our congressional delegation is bragging about how they have addressed financial regulation. It's in their own interest to believe they have fixed this so I don't expect much introspection on their part.

There are a large number of very knowledgeable people who think we have done nothing to stop a reoccurrence of our present mess. There is no downside to taking effective action (aside from reducing Wall St bonuses from obscene to excessive). There is a giant upside to avoiding another giant recession. Or as I put it to a senior Bennet campaign worker:

Issues like this are too important to subjugate them to political advantage. I'm not on your side, I'm on the side of what's best for our country.

Colorado Democratic State Assembly – live blog

8:36 – Finally found the press area and am set up! Pretty low key so far with most people sitting and waiting and some milling around. Lines at the county register booths are very short. Only two groups handing out lit on the way in was a union group saying we should build more stuff and a Palestinian rights person. Also the Bennet campaign was giving away Krispy Kreme donuts – my decision yesterday cost me a donut!

Romanoff & Bennet teams are both out in force. More Romanoff signs (by far) both outside and inside. A lot of people wearing Romanoff t-shirts. No surprise with this, he does have the majority among the delegates. There's also a couple of signs & big banners up for all of our Congress People – DeGette, Polis, Salazar, Markey, & Perlmutter. None for Udall though – I guess as he's not running this year he doesn't put anything up.

8:53 – There are two press spots in the skyboxes over section 108 and each has two teams in them. I'm sharing the one I am in with Fox News. They appear to be nice people even though they are part of Murdoch's plan to control the universe.

8:57 – Hick has a pretty strong presence here too. Lots of signs and stickers being handed out by his campaign team. Still pretty quiet and boring. And very well organized considering that we're Democrats.

8:59 – Opening video is starting. Starts off with the great things we have done starting and ending with the word LIBERAL.

9:00 – Pat Waak calling us to order (on time!), introducing party officers

9:04 – Pledge of Allegiance and now a woman with an incredible voice singing the Star Spangled Banner.

9:07 – Jared Polis introduced and gets a strong welcome. Doing a good job of laying out the progress we Dems have made in the state. Going from a small state footprint where we were trying to reduce the damage of Republican administration to pretty much running the state. (Yeah baby!)

9:14 – Joe Neguse up speaking. Getting everyone worked up to elect Democrats across the state. And now a short part about why he's running for regent.

9:17 – Diane Primavera – Nice friendly welcome to Broomfield speech.

9:22 – Bill Ritter walking out – and he's getting a standing ovation. (I'm going to miss him.) Calling out a giant thank you to the army of volunteers that make our party a success. He's presenting an award to a woman who has been county chair for 22 years. Calling out a thank you to Pat Waak (she does do an outstanding job). Thanking everyone for their support for the past 4 years. (Ritter is definitely a class act.)

He's now speaking about how as Democrats we must come together. That the differences we have within our team are nothing compared to the difference with the Republicans. He is speaking to the difference in Republican and Democratic control both in Colorado and for the country as a whole. Its interesting – his talk is concentrating more on the federal races. Nice plus to Hickenlooper at the end. This has got to be bittersweet for Ritter as this is his swan song.

9:34 – Ritter gone and no one on stage or any announcement of what/when next. They're showing screenshots on the large screen and the shot of both Fox news and one of Glen Beck got large boo's.

9:46 – Still sitting and waiting… Here's the official schedule:

• Selection of the Temporary Officers of the Assembly
• Seating of Assembly Alternates
• Pledge of allegiance
• Invocation
• Welcome by Rep Jared Polis
• Welcome by the Broomfield Democratic Delegation (Rep. Diane Primavera)
• Welcome by Governor Bill Ritter -
• Introduction of Colorado Democratic Party Initiative Chairs and DNC Member
• Report of the Credentials Committee Chair, Carol Burkhart
• Report of the Permanent Organization Committee Chair, Carolyn Boller
• Lt. Governor Barbara O'Brien
• Nomination for Governor
• Nomination for U.S. Senate
• Collection of ballots for U.S Senate
• Diana DeGette
• John Salazar
• Betsy Markey
• CD 5 Candidate (TBD)
• John Flerlage
• Ed Perlmutter
• Nomination for Treasurer
• Nomination for Secretary of State
• Introduction of State House by Terrance Carroll
• Introduction of State Senate by Brandon Shaffer
• Nomination and balloting for CU Regent
• Collection of ballots for CU Regent
• Nomination for Attorney General
• Senator Mark Udall
• Platform by Hal Bidlack, Chair of the Platform Committee
• Announcement of results of balloting
• Adjournment

So we're apparently waiting for "Introduction of Colorado Democratic Party Initiative Chairs and DNC Member" – but no idea why this is requiring a delay.

9:51 – Pat's back! Introduced 3 people and we applauded.

9:53 – Credentials committee report (this falls in the necessary but boring part). Everyone just voted aye on something.

9:58 – Lt. Gov Barbara O'Brien now up. Introduces Dem board of education and regent officials – applause for all.

10:02 – Nominations are now open for Governor for the state of Colorado. The tension is unbearable as everyone wonders who it will be :) Wellington Webb is nominating Hick for Governor. It was a pretty straightforward speech – not killer (and Webb can deliver killer).

10:04 – Video about Hick. It's person after person talking about Hick. It strikes me as a way of introducing Hick as everyone's friend and a regular guy. I think that works well for this audience because they're going to work hard for him – it helps them sell him.

10:08 – Hick walks out to a giant standing ovation. He's wearing a suite with very wide labels – and the labels are zebra skin. He starts off talking up the attributes of zebras and says he "has always been a zebra of a different stripe." He's definitely turning that add to an advantage. Now speaking in a very inclusive way saying that all of us, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans want our state to prosper. Saying that the way forward is not by trashing the other candidate, but to talk about his vision of what he wants to do for Colorado.

Now talking about how he is not a politician, that he's never run for any office before Mayor. What he knows is running a business, creating jobs, and watching every dollar. Talking about the public/private partnerships he's built to get problems addressed. Brings up how, when everyone said that opening a restaurant in Lo-Do during a recession was impossible, he pulled it off. That when everyone said we can never get the national convention here, he did.

Now says "jobs have to be our number one priority." If he truly gets that and focuses the campaign on that, then I think he's got a very strong campaign. Nothing specific listed about how to accomplish this, but a lot about why we need to address this problem. Takes that to we need a stellar job on education to have the workforce for the future (damn straight). And says we need to properly fund education – which got a surprisingly mild applause. Next points out that Higher Ed funding is directly related to the health of the state economy.

He then says that he will point out the differences between his campaign and his opponent. He listed out a couple of good phrases included building Colorado up instead of tearing people down.

10:25 – Hick is walking off to another standing ovation. He's got an interesting style, it appears to be half common guy and half very competent businessman. He does it in a ver non-pretensious way and that sells well.

10:26 – Hickenlooper nominated as sole candidate by acclimation! It's official and that means one thing – bad news for the Republicans!

10:28 – Nomination for Romanoff announced and the place erupted chanting "Andrew." Person nominating him stressed that he has the highest ethics and was the former speaker of the house. Person seconding it stresses that regular people like her support Andrew. Now a video narrated by Andrew taking us through his family and his growing up. Next talking about the service he did helping the poor. It then went to his service in the legislature which got loud applause. Gave a beautiful story of a woman out of work and her wish to have someone representing her in Washington – strong way to end it.

10:37 – Andrew coming out on the stage to a rock star reception. Starts of thanking his mom – "everything I am or hope to be I owe to her." (Very classy.) Next says that after the primary we must all support the winner – that he (Andrew will) and everyone must. But he then says that the Senate seat does not belong to "his opponent," it belongs to Colorado. Now saying he will always remember that he represents the people of Colorado, not the interests in Washington.

Now in to a litany of the good things that we Democrats accomplished in Colorado once we gained a majority. (And everyone knows that occurred with him as Speaker.) That so many in Colorado are better off for those efforts. He then talked about needing as good leadership in the capitol as we have in the white house. And then he said that it is critical to have Senators that will represent the people and not sell us out – and that is why he is running. (I'd call that throwing down the gauntlet big time.) He then said fix the system or get out of the way – that got a giant applause.

Really good listing of what we should be doing in Washington from not giving bank CEOs a get out of jail free card to letting oil companies that trash the environment have a pass. He's diving in to how BP is not being held accountable for the devastation it has inflicted on our country. And how BP's immense amount of lobbying dollars is giving them a pass. He's now selling his candidacy as saying no to the existing system where the special interests drive the legislation. He reiterated his refusal to accept contributions to special interest groups – and that got a major applause.

He's tapping in to the deep dissatisfaction people have with Washington where it does the bidding of the lobbyists rather than the will of the people. That the one way to change this is for the people to elect a Senator that will represent those that voted for them. That it will happen here, and elsewhere, and each of those Senators elected, in total, will change the system. He ended "stand with me and I will stand with you always."

10:55 – He's walking off now. Andrew Romanoff gives a damn good speech (same at the Boulder assembly). And he makes points that are spot-on and resonate well.

10:57 Bennet starting with his video. His daughter is narrating the bio part, then his wife narrating. It does a good job of showing him as a regular guy who's life is centered on his family. And it does a good and unobtrusive job of showing that he grew up middle class. Then we got Obama's speech here for him followed by newspaper headlines touting Bennet accomplishments in the Senate.

11:04 – Nomination of Bennet. This is weird, they have the lights low for this part with a spot on the nominator. I think that reduces the level of response to the speech. Says Michael's accomplishments in office are to stand up to special interests and reform Wall St (I call bullshit on that one). And to pass healthcare reform. Many now chanting "we want Mike."

11:07 – Second for Michael Bennet. Pretty generic Michael's doing a great job speech.

11:09 – Bennet supporters on their feet (a lot fewer than Romanoff), and Bennet now up on the stage. His first line was "thank you and I accept your nomination to the United States Senate." Thank you too all the people have supported him. Talking about how we all have the same aspirations for our children and our state. Talking about his parents coming here as refugees from Europe during WWII. That his parents history is the story of America is the land of opportunity.

Talking about how he is not a politician and is concerned about our political system. Talking about his efforts working for Hick and then at DPS. That leads in to leaving more for our kids, not less for our kids. Talking about the legislation they passed in the Senate – credit card reform, health care reform, taking on the big banks, and the tax cuts delivered to 90% of the people in Colorado.

Next brought up his bill to freeze congressional pay until they fix the economy (he says that was passed). Then discussed his proposal to not allow ex-Senators to be lobbyists. Then talking about the giant financial issues facing most people in our country. Now trash talking the Republicans – crowd happily booing along to that. "They want to take us backwards while we want to take Colorado and our country forward."

Very uplifting speech about how we can make things better, how we can improve the economy, bring our troops home, and we can statrt making responsible decisions and not leave our children a mountain of debt. Then brought in the we will also elect Hickenlooper as Governor and support Obama as president.

11:23 – Standing ovation from the Bennet supporters as he walks off. I don't know how good my estimate is but I think Romanoff has about twice as many people standing and waving signs. If I am accurate (no idea if I am), then the vote will be 66/33.

A couple of notes on this. Bennet's presentation has improved. He's not at Romanoff's level, but he's now decent. And he's lost that Thurston Howell III voice and presentation. Strong improvement. He also said nothing about pulling together after the primary – nada. And no real effort to compare himself to Romanoff. Maybe he figures the primary is a slam dunk but it was weird. Bottom line though is that the primary has made Bennet a better campaigner.

11:26 – It's voting time.

11:40 – reminding people to get their ballot in. We continue to wait.

11:48 – Dianna DeGette is now speaking. The place is half empty now. I don't know if they're walking around outside or if people just took off after voting. DeGette is talking about how we Dems are not going to back down from the new legislation we have accomplished. Listing what has been done over the last 18 months. DeGette is a good rep, but a political speech does not seem to be her strong suit (or she's having an off day). Nothing of note said.

11:56 – John Salazar – Salazar is fired up, he's talking up that Congress has done "exactly what you asked us to do." Next talking about the importance of sticking together through and after the primary. Talking up the other congressional candidates and then thanking everyone for the privlege and honor of representing his district. Strong speech and short too so it was well received.

11:59 – Betsy Markey – Good populist speech. Bringing up that she has spent more time out of politics than in politics, has raised a family, and has created two companies. She's got a really good story for the present political environment. Talking about the work she did to bring about credit card reform. Going through a list of accomplishments and presenting it well, ending with "health care reform we can all be proud of." Now she's taking on Sarah Palin agressively – I love Betsy when she gets like this. She asks the great question "when did hope and change become a bad thing?" She brings up the spot-on point that hope and change is the fundamental American approach to life.

Oh wow. She was so good on her close I just watched instead of writing it down. But she told Cory Gardner – "bring it on."

12:09 – Ed Perlmutter – Starting talking off about the great quality of the Democrats we have elected in Colorado (very true). Next went in to the "rude awakening" the Republicans got in the recent special election in Pennsylvania. Going through the big picture of making things better through hope and change. It's a strong speech and it's really a speech for the Democratic party. Not a word about his race.

12:15 – John Flerlage – start of the sacrificial lambs category. He's making a good anti-war speech. Now trash talking Lamborn & Coffman. It was a strong speech, but the numbers in CD6 are overwhelmingly Republican.

12:22 – We now have someone up who is our CD5 candidate (did not catch his name). He apparently decided to run 2 hours ago (that is not a joke). I do appreciate people who step up to do this because we should always challenge ever seat. And from these races we do gauge change (if any) in the districts.

12:26 – Now have all the congressional candidates up together for a final round of applause. John Salazar grabbed the mike to call out a big thank you to Pat Waak (well done).

12:27 – Nomination & second for Cary Kennedy. The second was by Cary's mom – that was very sweet. Video is all about the BEST program that makes it possible to rebuild broken down school buildings.

11:31 – Cary now speaking, first accepting the nomination. Introducing the family. Going in to detail about how she did a superb job protecting the state's money – they have made money every single year since she's been in office (which is more than most fund managers can say). She has really good presentation in her speech. She's now taking credit for Colorado's economy being in better shape than the country as a whole – it's bullshit but I think it will sell. Now talking about adequately funding schools, and making sure the funds are made best use of. Trash talking her opponents – one is a film maker with no financial experience, one is a Bush family member with no financial experience, and the 3^rd is a Wall St. banker. She contrasts that with herself who the people of Colorado can trust to take good care of their money. She's got a powerful argument for the race.

12:40 – With no other nominations Cary is nominated by acclimation.

12:42 – Nomination, second, etc. for Bernie Beuscher as Sec. of State. Have a 3^rd person up asking for campaign workers (that's not a good sign). This was not a good presentation.

12:51 – Bernie now up. Talking up the improvements he has brought to the office and doing a good job putting it across. Now talking about keeping elecions fair and clean.

12:56 – Bernie nominated by acclimation.

I just talked with a Bennet campaign staffer. And I'm still alive! He disagreed with me that reinstituting Glass-Stegall is key to avoiding a repeat of the great recession. But he did agree that if we have a repeat in the next 10 years, he'll call me up and tell me I was right. I'm sure that will make everyone going through another recession feel much better :) I also asked the Bennet campaign if I can interview Senator Bennet on the topic of financial regulation. No reply so far.

They're introducing all the House and Senate members.

I'm going to lunch – back about 2:30

Update: I'm not going back. My daughters (met them for lunch) asked me to spend the afternoon. Family first. The Spot blog on the Post should have the Bennet/Romanoff results as soon as they're known. Have a nice afternoon all.

Why I will not be voting for Senator Bennet on Saturday

Politics is the art of compromise. Even when we elect someone we are in close agreement with, there are times they will disappoint us. And politicians need to win the vote to do anything. In Colorado, for a state-wide office, that means we elect moderate Democrats. That's the will of the people and to fight that is to tilt at windmills. In to this mix add interest groups and the need to raise obscene amounts of money, where a candidate must at least pay lip service to many of these groups, and you have a mess.

In the sausage factory we call Congress, with all these various forces, and so many ways to spin each vote, we are often left wondering just what we are getting from a given legislator. And they rarely take some clear unambiguous action that shifts them from hero to villain in a single moment. It would be nice if life was that simple – but it's not (although people on the far left and far right haven't learned that basic lesson).

So we're left having to read the tea leaves from what they do, and what they don't do. In the case of Senator Bennet, in my opinion, he has come down strongly on the side of the major banks. Or to be more accurate, on the side of the top executives that pull out hundreds of billions of dollars in bonuses yearly by privatizing profits and socializing risk. Why he has come down on their side I don't know. But clearly he has.

The root issue with the just passed security regulation is that it will not stop a repeat. David Kurtz put it best:

Historians will probably conclude that the package of reforms was surprisingly modest given the depth and severity of the 2008-09 financial crisis. A harsher historical judgment might find that the political and economic power wielded by the financial industry in the late 20th and early 21st centuries was so extensive that it could weather a near total collapse of the system without having to yield its power or privilege.

It adds regulation, but the SEC was busy downloading porn instead of enforcing existing regulation that would have easily identified Bernie Maddox and Alan Stanford. It disallows some mortgage practices, but with hundreds of billions of dollars in bonuses at stake, Wall St. will find other investments to bet the economy on. Yes we have a competent Democratic administration enforcing regulation now, but that didn't mean MMS was actually inspecting off-shore oil wells.

Throughout the process on the reform, on the key amendments, Senator Bennet was voting for the banks and against the people and against the health of our economy. On the key amendments that were not even brought forward for a vote, he was silent.

As to why, it's not a liberal vs. conservative issue. Trust me, the moderates and conservatives in Colorado do not want to socialize the banks risk taking. And they do not want the large banks to be able to risk our economic well-being. Fixing the financial system is a bi-partisan issue. I assume it's not a money issue as Senator Bennet has raised a ton of money already and I don't think we would sell us out for a couple of hundred thousand.

But for some reason Senator Bennet has decided that he wants the financial system to remain pretty much as is. There's a bit more regulation, and a few new actions. But mostly it's some minor changes all dressed up real pretty so members of congress can point to it as action taken in the November election.

Now compare that to another Senate candidate who said:

He also is in favor of the idea of not allowing banks to be too big to fail and thinks we should look at using the anti-trust laws to break up the ones that can take the entire economy down with them if they fail.

I am a Bennet delegate for the state assembly this Saturday. My options are to vote for Senator Bennet, or to not vote. I will not be voting. Yes I am a very ardent Democrat. But more important than that, I am an American. And our economic system cannot weather constant devastation wrought upon it by out of control bankers sucking every bit of life out of it to increase their bonuses. So in August I will look again at Senator Bennet's efforts from now till then, and to see if Andrew Romanoff has learned how to run a competent campaign.

And in November I will vote for the candidate that I think will be best for America.

Senate President Brandon Shaffer Interview

This was a great way to bookend this session. Before the start of the session I went to the Evil Jedi Conclave GOP Legislative Kick-Off and after I had the chance to interview Senate President Brandon Shaffer. Senator Shaffer is a really nice guy and I think that is a big asset in leading the Senate. He also has a GIANT office – every other legislator is stacked up in various broom closets. Nice digs.

I started off by saying that I thought this had been one of the most productive legislative sessions ever and asked if that was true. Brandon thinks that is true, that "at the end of the day we got a lot done." He listed through a dozen or so bills that are substantial and move us forward (many covered below). He also brought up the major point that the legislature addressed a number of issues that had been put off for years. And stepping up to address those issues (like Higher Ed transfer, SB-191, PERA, etc.) was major.

He called out PERA as a very difficult problem that every state is facing. This year they came up with a solution that keeps the fund solvent. And it was done in a bi-partisan manner without a major conflagration under the dome. He points out this easily could have been a giant partisan fight. But instead they created good legislation.

This led to my asking, aside from legislation on redistricting & voting which are always partisan (the minority party is always shocked, repeat shocked, that the majority party will try to gain advantage on these), was there any major partisan battle this session. Brandon said there was one other – the exemptions & credits bill. That was rammed through on partisan lines. But after they got through that, everything ran pretty smoothly. He then went to quote me statistics, pulling out his iPhone to rattle off the number of bills with bi-partisan prime-sponsored, total, etc. They worked very hard to make as much legislation as possible bi-partisan.

My $0.02: When there's no fight, there's no story. What the legislature pulled off this year is amazing in terms of what was addressed and how well it was accomplished. This is the political system at its best. It's also illustrative that the one exemption, the search the couch for any spare change (exemptions & credits) bill was a complete mess and almost certainly would have been a better bill if the legislature had taken the time and crafted a bi-partisan compromise.

This led to the most important question of the interview – why was this session so successful and how do we get that again in the future. Senator Shaffer started off by saying "we made a concerted effort to be bi-partisan this year." He said they started talking last summer and worked hard to keep those issues that need not be bi-partisan to work together on. And to create a collegial atmosphere.

My $.02: I think Senator Shaffer's point on not letting disagreement on one topic spill over to all legislation is an important one. But I think a lot is also due to the legislators deciding to address the serious issues the state faces, and to do so responsibly. We have a really good group in there – on both sides of the aisle. I also wonder if term limits helps. Each session a lot of legislators are done, so there is no major political repercussion they face on their efforts and votes.

I next asked about SB-191 (tenure reform). Brandon replied that he worked harder on that bill than any other bill this session with the possible exception of PERA reform. His wife is a teacher, active in the CEA, and she also worked very hard to try and bring all parties together on this. So his was a family effort on this bill (Shaffer voted for the bill).

Brandon spoke very highly if how Senator Johnston moved the bill forward, working with everyone. He also discussed how it is very scary to the people involved. He put a great personal note on it pointing out that if his wife loses her job due to this bill "I guarantee you, I will hear about it." (Isn't that the truth.) He then discussed how the vast majority of teachers in our system are effective teachers (very true).

I followed up saying that what's key is to have this implemented well, and does he think the state will do a competent job implementing the legislation. Senator Shaffer believes we will be ok on this count, we have 3 years to put it together, a year of rule-making, and then it comes back to the legislature. And then a year of a pilot program. And subsequent to that, the legislature meets every year and can tweak it as necessary.

My $0.02: All fair points. But the best plan can still be screwed up by incompetent administration. I am hopeful that SB-191 will lead to significant improvement, but we need to have the right people implementing it. And you know… Brandon Shaffer will be term limited about the time they need someone to head this up.

My next question is what is the State's strategic plan. Brandon started off by saying that the requirement for a balanced budget (in the constitution) requires a stagnant instead of a dynamic budget model. In other words, you can't spend an extra 100 million this year that will save you a billion in 5 years – unless you have that 100 million today.

He next talked about the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission (started last year) that is looking at the core government functions. He called out the core jobs of the state as public safety, public education, and transportation. But he discussed the difficulty of building consensus as to what is core and what is not core using the example of early childhood education – not all legislators view that as part of the core. He also brought up the example that you can suggest dropping parks & recreation because that's not core, but to some people it is a key service.

Senator Shaffer also talked about how people think the state is bloated in terms of what it offers when in fact it is cut so far back that we are not even keeping the core functions maintained. He brought up the disrepair of our transportation as a prime example of this. He then brought up the SMART Government bill that first requires each department to generate a strategic plan, list out their department's goals, and then set the auditor's office to measure how well each department meets its goals. It's a bit of a complicated process due to separation of powers and this is just getting started. He finished by pointing out that this will take years to play out, but we might as well get started now.

My $0.02: This may be one of the most powerful initiatives ever for the state. If executed well, this could bring clear rigor and accountability to each department as well as a clear focus on what that department is expected to accomplish. Most people do not think the state is bloated but they do realize that it is horribly inefficient in places. When you have disasters like OIT & DOR, that reflects on every department in the state – and an initiative like this can put an end to incompetently administered departments.

I next asked what does the ROI need to be on a program that saves residents money for it to be considered worth continuing its funding. He first brings up the key point that when they create legislation they are dependent on projections and "projections from past experiences are very difficult to calculate." (That's political speak for "they're a wild-ass guess.") It then takes years of a program in effect to determine what it's real ROI is. And with term limits, etc. that makes evaluating it difficult. The legislature is now requiring a 3 – 5 year look back to determine what the state actually gains from each program. This has now been done for the past 2 years.

He also discussed a program the Colorado Children's Campaign has created a dynamic modeling program where you can tweak input variables and it will then show you the improvements you gain from those changes. Senator Shaffer states that he has no idea how accurate it is, but then goes on and on about how cool it is and what you can learn from it. He then said that if you had a super computer that was fed all the data on what efforts deliver what results you could do the budget very quickly by running this program.

My $0.02: This is every public policy person's ultimate fantasy. And like every fantasy, the reality is quite different. First off doubling an input does not mean you get double the output. Second, many times you can't find the right people to double the input (i.e. how many qualified pre-school teachers are available). Tools like this can help in decision making, but they are just one tool out of many that should be used.

$0.02 cont: What is very valuable is to constantly look back on each program, and adjust or end those that are not working. This constant beta/fast failure model is used in the high tech world to great success. The big problem in the public sphere is once a program is running, the people directly involved in it will hang on to it for dear life, because that program is their livelihood. The state has to get better at ending programs.

Next I asked if the state should have an antagonistic relationship with business. Brandon replied with an emphatic no. He went on to say "state departments should be helping business both to navigate the regulations that are out there so they don't accidently violate rules." I then asked about the Department of Revenue being unable (or unwilling) to give guidance on the new sales tax rules. He replied that they made some changes because the state needed the additional revenue and it takes the DOR time to figure out the new process.

Brandon then spoke about how business wants certainty more than anything, that he "is told over and over – just tell me what the rules are." He then went on to admit that at present there is uncertainty and it will take some time to "shake out." He then brought up that another way the state is gaining additional revenue is through stronger enforcement of existing law. I summed this up as the state telling business "we can't tell you what you're supposed to do yet and once we figure it out [we'll fine you for what you did wrong]." Brandon's reply was "that is a fair commentary."

He said that they usually try to put a 6 month delay in on changes so departments have the time to figure them out. I asked why they didn't have the delay in the software tax bill and Brandon said the same thing Rollie Heath said – that he thought it had the delay (it didn't).

My $0.02: Unfortunately, understanding this problem doesn't alleviate it. Small business pays the price for the state's inept handling of this "shake out" period. And while the prime responsibility of this sits with the administration, not putting in a sufficient delay rests with the legislature. And it's worrisome that both Brandon and Rollie voted yes on a bill they thought had a 6 month delay when it didn't. This is a large part of why the state has an antagonistic relationship with business. It's also a large part of why business owners tend to support Republicans.

I next asked about the taxes that have very high overhead like Use Tax and Business Property Tax. His first answer was that because of TABOR, they have gone for the additional revenue where they can raise it without a vote. He then brought up a bill this session that will study all of the taxes and fees of the state. The state does this every 50 years. Brandon concluded by saying he would love to get rid of all the fees and adjust the income tax to match. (I should have asked if he would like to get rid of sales tax too and do just income tax – sorry.) He discussed this in detail and sees rationalizing the taxes and fees as something that will improve citizen's view of the state government.

That led in to the question of what do we do about TABOR besides blame it for everything. He first started discussing the constitutional revision committee proposal that Rollie Heath proposed (it was not passed). Brandon made a good case for the committee and how it would work. Listen to the recording for all the details (this goes back to Andrew Romanoff).

What was really interesting is Senator Shaffer then said what he really would have liked to do is set up a constitutional convention. He then went in to why he thinks we should do it, and why he thinks it would work well. His main points (both very good) is first that the new constitution has to be approved on the ballot so anything crazy won't get approved. Second he brought up the very good point that the people writing it will be very aware of the need for it to pass on the ballot and will therefore be careful to write something that will be approved. Brandon is a strong supporter of a convention and will try to make this happen next year.

I then asked what is the state doing to help on the jobs picture and to help small business (the main engine of new jobs). Brandon started off with the healthcare reform that has been passed over the last 2 years at the state level. Lowering healthcare costs does reduce overhead costs for local businesses. He next discussed how most efforts for this cost money – and the state doesn't have any spare cash. But outside of that, increasing the renewal energy requirement and the switch to natural gas will generate jobs as those are implemented.

My $0.02: Not to pick on Brandon because this has been consistent across everyone I have talked to. The state could do a tremendous amount to help small business and thereby boost job growth in this state. And do so at no increased cost. 1) Provide competent leadership in departments that interact with businesses. The incompetence at Department of Revenue negatively impacts every business in Colorado. 2) Eliminate uncertainty by giving businesses clear answers on what they should and should not do. Leaving businesses to guess takes time, money, and opportunity cost. 3) Reducing overhead. For example, give companies the option to determine Use Tax owed as a percentage of gross income. 4) Have departments purchase from Colorado companies if they offer the best product. At present OIT's policy appears to be ABC – Anywhere But Colorado. Now these items are on the administration side of the system – but it would be nice to see legislators recognizing the jobs boost we would get from these actions and looking for ways to make them happen.

I next asked what program he would kill. Kudos to Senator Shaffer here – he first said that he hoped it would not appear in the blog (I immediately replied it will) but he then immediately followed on with CCHE. This speaks well of Brandon that he directly answered the question with a specific program. He then went in to how CCHE is not really doing anything – well thought out argument on this.

I ended asking him what he's going to do when he is term limited. He came alive saying he would love to teach (High School American History) or work for the foreign service. He was very animated and excited talking about both and the specifics of each – especially teaching. And then he said but probably law – and that was without the same level of interest.

In Conclusion

First off, I think Brandon Shaffer deserves a ton of credit for this session – a job very well done. He clearly is a very smart and thoughtful guy who took on the hard issues the state faces and thought through the legislation to determine what should be done. Democrats from Boulder County clearly make great Senate Presidents. Really good person to have in this position.

Second, I think the state has a lot of new processes in progress that can lead to a tremendous improvement in how the state government operates. SB-191 got the most press, but an ongoing look back on all projects and putting in place ongoing audits of departments – those are huge. Rationalizing the tax structure and maybe next year starting on the road to a constructional convention – also major. The state isn't where it should be, but it's getting there.

Finally, Brandon Shaffer clearly has the talent to accomplish politically difficult tasks in a very positive way that brings everyone along as much as possible. At the same time, he does not shy away from the fights necessary to get effective legislation through. This is a rare and valuable talent. And it is exactly what is needed for whoever will head up the efforts to implement SB-191. Add to this his desire to be in teaching after he is term limited, and I think we have a really good fit.

podcast: Brandon Shaffer Interview

Don Marostica Interview

I had the opportunity to interview Don Marostica today. It was really interesting, he does a great job of laying things out eloquently and directly. (I had a dead battery in my recorder which is unfortunate as the podcast would have been great.) And the OED offices are really nice digs with an awesome view of the Rockies.

I started off asking what is it the OED does. Don broke it out to 7 parts.

1. Growing businesses in the state, both organically and try to bring companies in. He is concentrating on organically because A couple of states will offer a ton more. Texas (state slogan - "I hate government stimulus") is presently offering 50K/job for companies to move there. Michigan, Tennessee, & Nevada are close behind. So he says that if he can get people to come here, and it's not purely a financial decision, then Colorado has a strong chance. But otherwise – build up what we have.
   Interesting note he brought up – 70% of Colorado business is small business. So that's where the action is here. And they are focused on start-up companies – and a lot of that is teaching people the fundamentals of running a business. (Interesting thing I learned – my company is not a start-up, it's now a growth company.)
2. Helping rural companies. They have a part focused on the rural parts of the state that have been heavily hammered by the recession – some have unemployment rates of 20%. (I think what's key here is generate start-ups in rural areas that can sell over the net world-wide so that brings a positive cash flow to the area.)
3. Increasing loans to small businesses. The present lack of credit is presently the biggest brake on job growth (very true). They are seeing banks starting to loan a little, but it's miniscule. Mostly they are seeing people get money from Friends, Family, & Fools. There is also a state program that has lent some money. And he is working on getting together all the super-rich in Colorado and beating on them to invest some of what they've made here back in to Colorado companies. (This is a really good idea – companies get the money they need and the investors will make a nice profit.)
   My $0.02: The banks are total scumbags withholding credit from companies that have years of continuous profit – after we bailed their asses out when they invested in bogus paper they were all selling each other. (Thank god my company does not need to borrow.)
4. Creative industries from painters to a guy who makes artistic gun stocks. Don thinks this segment will become a significant part of Colorado's economy as it grows.
5. International trade. Most of Colorado's trade is with Mexico and Canada and so that gets primary focus. The other big effort is Japan where they have been working for 5 years to get a direct flight from Denver to Tokyo. A lot of this is trying to set up relationships between Colorado companies and the appropriate people in other countries. (This can help a lot – the relationship building takes a lot of time and money and small companies cannot afford to do it individually.)
6. Tourism, which is our second largest industry. Which led me to ask "what's first?" Well, by far, in "small government" Colorado it's… government. Now this category spans the gamut from City/County up to the federal facilities throughout the state. But still, first?
7. Minority and woman owned business. He then talked a bit about the work they are doing to help small Hispanic businesses in the state.

Don believes OED is doing a good job in a rough environment. He takes a lot of pride in the number of small start-ups they have helped that are still in businesses, and the number of jobs across all of them. I asked him why I hadn't heard of them and he asked me how large my company is and if we're hiring (we are). And his reply was we don't need them. I take this as a good indication – they are focused on getting companies started.

I next asked what industries will be driving Colorado over the next 20 years. He first brought up the excellent point that the single biggest issue of the economy going forward is that we are now in a worldwide global economy. This is true today for software but he sees it as being true even for land development (his background) and that's about as localized a business as any. Excellent point – companies that can't compete worldwide, or that don't sell worldwide, are not going to be successful. He then listed what he sees as the biggies:

• Aviation & aerospace. Aviation in that DIA runs at half capacity and he thinks that will grow to full. Aerospace in that companies like Lockheed-Martin and the federal government have a ton invested here and will continue to grow it.
• Bio/life sciences. Everything from medical care (which is gigantic everywhere) to bioscience research. One item he called out was some company has a bio-something that can be pumped into the ground and it causes ongoing natural gas generation there.
• Green energy. We have seen a lot of investment here and he puts a lot of that due to the fact that the euro/dollar exchange rate has slipped to make purchases in the U.S. dirt cheap. But hey, however we get it.
• I.T. (Yeah!). He said that the upper floors of all the offices along Pearl St. in Boulder are filled with software start-ups, many of them game companies. Out of this he thinks we will get a number of good sized successful companies with a lot of great jobs (very true).

My $0.02: I think everything he says here is spot-on. But if we want our companies to be successful worldwide, then the state needs to update its tax laws to take into account sales worldwide. And install leadership in the Department of Revenue who can actually figure out what should be done, and implement it.

Finally I asked him about the future of the Republican party in our state. He believes the GOP suffers from a lack of leadership, that they need strong experienced leaders who are not career politicians. This was interesting that his discussion was not at first about the philosophical schism, but instead he discussed how the leadership is people who have made a career of politics and who have not been in it that long.

I then asked about the schism between those who want a more conservative party and those who look to the private sector and want to minimize government, but are somewhat moderate and can therefore craft compromise with the moderate Democrats. This also got an interesting response in that he talked about the social conservatives who wanted to tell everyone how to live vs. the "independent" Republicans who want to leave the social part to individuals. This was interesting because he didn't even bring up the "drown government in a bathtub" contingent. (I should have asked is that because this contingent is so small.)

I finally asked if he thinks the two wings of the Republican party will come back together. Don does not see that happening. I pointed out that we Democrats managed to do it, but he was adamant that it's not happening on the GOP side (soon).

My $0.02: I think he's correct that the state GOP is missing that senior active level of political leadership. They have young up and comers like Penry and McNulty. And they have the retired old dogs like Armstrong & Brown. Scott McInnis is really all the GOP has and that's not a deep bench (Jane Norton has connections, but not the depth of experience). I don't know why the state GOP is missing this segment in their leadership but Don is spot-on with this observation.

On his view that people should not make politics a career, it is a somewhat common viewpoint, but much easier to hold for someone who themselves has not made it a career. As you move up the ladder, there is a strong advantage, both in electability and in being effective in office, in having a ton of political experience. Reagan and Clinton were both very effective presidents – and both were career politicians. It's an interesting question, but I don't think it is the root of the GOP woes.

His opinion that the schism in the Republican party will not be healed is the most worrisome. Don is one of the leaders of the "independent" Republicans. He clearly speaks to many other Republicans of similar view. And he sees them sitting politics out because of this schism (and the requirement to fully disclose finances). If this is true, the Republican party will either break in half or will stay in a minority position. Either way that is not good for Colorado because a permanent Democratic majority will lead to a corrupt system (see Boulder).

My final question was where he sees the economy going. He thinks the next 2 – 3 budgets are going to be awful. Income for the state is a lagging indicator and the federal money is going to dry up – both the direct dollars to the states and the stimulus funding. So the first 3 years of the next administration are going to be awful. (So as Dems, should we work to get McInnis elected?)

I enjoyed talking to Don. He's a nice guy, speaks what is on his mind, and has a good understanding of helping business in Colorado. I think Governor Ritter made a good choice here. On the flip side quiet competence tends to be boring – so no fireworks out of OED.

 

 

Beverly Ingle (CEA) Interview

I got the chance to interview Beverly Ingle, president of the Colorado Education Association today. The interview occurred because of SB-191 but actually discussed a lot more. She is a really nice person and was very gracious with her time. And so on to the interview.

My first question was sum up in one sentence what the CEA's goal is. Beverly had an immediate answer – "Great public schools for every child." This was something that came from NEA and she said it immediately resonated with everyone. She then went on to describe that a great school encompasses the community, the children, the teachers, the system – everything.

My next question was how do we think our K-12 system serves our poor children. She started off saying that she isn't going to assign a number because it depends on the school. She first talked about some schools that do a superb job, and added to that that those environments tend to burn out teachers over time because it is such a hard job.

She then talked about schools that do poorly. Her points on this were that there is a lot of moving people around (children, teachers, schools) when instead they needed a more constant environment. And that grading schools had a negative impact because people would look at the grades rather than the progress the school had made.

My $0.02: Beverly raises legit points here, but I wish she had been willing to speak more specifically to this question. (Or maybe I should have pushed harder.)

I next brought up the question of what most impacts how a child does in school, laying out the conventional wisdom that the mother's educational level and the child's teacher are the major items. Beverly first said that she had also heard the child family's income level was major. She then discussed the system/culture in place in the school. How the community is brought in to are the kids fed well to how the school operates.

I asked from her statements on this if "the environment for the teacher is every bit as important as the environment for the child because that's what lets the teacher do her job the best." Beverly's reply was "absolutely." She then discussed how the classroom environment, and the teacher knowing how best to get kids to engage, is critical to a good classroom.

Beverly then went in to discuss how the state has a requirement for a mentoring system where each new teacher is assigned a mentor who is an experienced teacher at that school. The idea is this gives the new teacher help on how to best reach the kids in that community and make best use of the system within that school. And she then added – ¼ of the new teachers met with their mentor once. Once! She added that Cherry Creek does run this program well.

She then went in to teachers having to figure out what to do. Finding out what programs, lesson plans, projects, etc will work best for the children in their class, taking in to account the way the school works, etc. And to most effectively teach in a classroom this needs to be done, on top of everything else the teacher needs to do over the course of the day. Having a strong mentoring program, both in the field being taught and in the school and type of students in the class is gigantic for helping teachers accomplish this.

My $0.02: This is censored ridiculous. There is no benefit to pretending to have a mentoring program. There is gigantic benefit to having one. School districts that fall down on this, principals who fall down on this, teachers who are assigned as mentors and blow it off – do your job. Not doing this well is inexcusable. In addition, while every class is unique, there are probably a few basic approaches where the teacher can start with one of those and tweak it a bit. But that requires schools & districts make this info available. (Hint, there's this thing called the Internet…)

I next asked her about Senator Evie Hudak's plea on her amendment that if they removed the "back to probationary" part if the bill, then it would be ok. Beverly replied that the existing system is to "protect competent teachers from incompetent principals." And the bill does not give teachers a way to challenge results and show that they are competent. She then talked about the existing due process system to have a poor teacher removed and how she thinks it is reasonable, walking me through it.

We then returned to my question about removing that one part and Beverly said "that is our major concern." She also raised three secondary concerns: 1) that they will teach to the new standards but be judged by the old standards, … and she then changed the subject to, and was quite emphatic about this, that they do think the evaluation system needs to be improved. That they have been on board with previous initiatives to improve evaluation. She also mentioned that in all this evaluation, there never seems to be any actual evaluation of administrators. She finished with "we believe in evaluation." (I just realized now I never got the other two secondary points – so we both forgot about that during the interview.)

My next question was if we do have a good evaluation system, how will administrators find the time to properly evaluate the teachers. Evaluating people, working through what they need to improve on, following up on that, etc takes time. How can this be done? Beverly feels this is very doable as long as the principal makes this a priority. She worked at a school where the principal did this and she says it made a gigantic difference in how well the school runs. In addition she says this attention (or lack thereof) sends a clear signal to the teachers as to their importance.

I asked next about how many non-probationary (don't call them tenured) teachers there are in the state. What was really interesting is Beverly didn't know. There are about 47,000 teachers in the state, and she says we have a high turnover in the state (that may be higher than average) and so we have a lot that are on probationary status. Some schools have a 50% turnover rate every 2 years. She then talked about the need to reduce this turnover rate because a lower turnover rate leads to better results.

Beverly then brought up a question that she says they are generally not supposed to ask, but she thinks is key – "what accountability goes on the student and what accountability goes on the parent?" She then talked about how students are smart – if they realize that if they do nothing they'll still be moved on from grade to grade, then they'll coast. She then went in to a very good discussion about how to do this – based on this I think she was excellent in her classroom.

My $0.02: Ok, this gets us into an incredibly frustrating part of our public education system. There are very clear straightforward things we can do to improve schools today. Some schools in poor districts reduce turnover – why isn't that being replicated. Some schools demand accountability of students (ask Southern Hills in Boulder about ZAP) – why isn't that being replicated? It's like the public school system is a place where good ideas go to die. These are spot-on points Beverly is making, and the schools should be doing this.

I then asked her if there are any non-probationary teachers that should be fired. Beverly replied "as I talk to my members that they can come up with one or two they may know of…" She then talked about how the administrators are not getting in there to get that teacher removed.

I next asked about the value of the ongoing evaluation helping teachers improve the job they are doing. Beverly replied that the turnaround on CSAP is so slow that it's too late to be of use (true). And the state has reduced funding for testing. She then discussed how there is this computer system that tracks student progress so that a student moving from one district to another can have their info move to the new district – and how they can't get to the system (shades of CBMS). She talked about all these various things the state is supposed to be doing, that it is required by law to do – but is not happening.

The bottom line, between all of her words, is she doesn't see the state as being capable of providing quality evaluation and definitely not capable of turning it around quickly.

She then talked about how teachers are micro-managed in how they are supposed to teach (every 9^th grade history class is teaching the same lesson plan this Tuesday). She discussed how this stifles the teachers because they have no control over what they do. And it stifles learning because it's same approach applied to all classes. Beverly views this as the teachers are made accountable for the results in the classroom, but do not have the authority to take the approach they think will work best in their class.

My $0.02: My direct experience is the three schools my kids went to in Boulder, and the teachers there clearly did have the authority (for better in some cases, for worse in others) to customize their lesson plans. But for districts/schools where this is not true, lack of authority in a job is incredible debilitating and short-sighted.

I next asked, if this bill passes and the worst happens, will it cost any union positions? In other words does firing non-probationary teachers, mean a position is eliminated or does it just change who is in it. She was not sure if it would have any impact, but that the revolving door that could occur would be bad.

I next asked if we should have a longer school year. Beverly's initial answer was budget constraints make this impossible. I asked her to take the budget constraints out of the question – to assume that the legislature told her that prove the benefit of a longer day and they will fund it. She lost it laughing at that point (very fair response). So we're talking a very theoretical question. She thinks some students definitely need this, but it has to be done in a way that is not viewed by the students as punitive.

But she then brought up the very good question – what are the priorities of the American people. She mentioned Wisconsin where they passed a law of no school memorial day to labor day, because the tourism industry needed the seasonal labor. (Gee, that's an interesting set of priorities.)

I then asked if the kids should have the son of CSAP grade matter for them so they have an incentive to do well on the test. She does support the basic idea, but she says it needs to be done in a way that works well for teachers and students. And she says she does not have a good detailed answer yet. She then brought up the very good idea of using those results to determine who needs summer school to bring them up to speed.

I then brought up the question of what happens to students where the teacher sucks and all the students then flunk the evaluation test and have to retake the class. Beverly agreed that this is a problem for a first year teacher. But for any other case, the administrators should be on top of this and address any teacher doing a poor job before it becomes really bad.

This led to the question of does a teacher whose performance is declining see it decline rapidly, or slowly over time. Beverly said that there are medical issues that can lead to a rapid decline. But for other cases "it does not happen overnight."

Beverly then brought up the need for kids to learn the soft skills – showing up for work on time, doing a good job, etc. And that this also is an important thing to teach in class. She then discussed how the evaluation system needs to cover all of this, and gets in to a range of how it's being handled. She also believes that having a robust discussion about how the evaluation system is designed will lead to a better system. (Very good point.)

At this point we hit was the most interesting part of the conversation. I brought up their "not so fast" slogan (which is clever – that's why the Republicans use it in D.C.) and asked was it really that this was going too fast – or was their core concern that the state would do an incompetent job of designing and running the evaluation system, that principals and administrators would do an incompetent job of implementing it, and was that the root concern.

Beverly answered by first listing out the efforts that the union has supported, including some that made their members uncomfortable. And she wants to get the evaluation system built that they are presently working on. She then discussed how the state "needs to build trust" with the new efforts presently going. She then talked about teachers who have story after story of administrators who have treated teachers unfairly. (Note: Just like every parent has stories of incompetent teachers, every teacher has stories of incompetent administrators. Part of this is the human condition, but I think part of it also is a sign of a very dysfunctional system.)

She then said that there are districts that do this [evaluation] well and ones that don't do this well. And for districts that don't do it well, they need a way of putting it back on that district and superintendent. She also added that we don't have 30 years to get this right, that we need to improve things quickly.

My $0.02: Based on Beverly's answer, clearly a large part, and possibly the main reason the CEA opposes this bill is they don't think the state and the districts can be trusted to implement this effectively and comprehensively. And the thing is, that's a very reasonable attitude. They've seen the state do a lousy or incomplete job on educational issues. They've seen incompetence, bureaucracy, and laziness from principals, administrators, districts, & the state.

I next asked why all four living governors support the bill. Beverly, said she doesn't know, but thinks it could be that they don't fully understand the bill. It also could be that they take a simplistic look and don't understand the actual system (see point above).

I closed by asking her if there was anything she wanted to add. Beverly immediately talked about the frustration about how everyone calls the CEA "the blocker" and how that is very frustrating because they have supported initiative after initiative. And also how the teachers bear the brunt of the system bouncing from "the next best thing" to the next "next best thing." A very passionate listing of the various initiatives they have supported.

This led into my commenting that the major political problem they face is that every parent can point to several teachers and say "why on earth is that person in a classroom." Beverly replied that in that case the principal should be taking action to remove that teacher. And she asks if all teachers should suffer for those bad teachers. And she suggested various changes that could make the removal process cheaper.

We then closed with both of us agreeing that if a teacher is doing a good job we want them in that classroom able to do their job. And if they are incompetent we want them out (Beverly was nicer in how she phrased this part – but she did agree).

My $0.02: Beverly makes the existing system sound fair and easy to use. From what I have seen as a parent I know in practice it's not. But she faces a very legitimate fear of the evaluation system being misused or incompetently administered, and her members paying the price for that. What's also key here is that she does want good teachers secure in their job, and bad teachers out.

The Bill

Ok, this interview surprised me. In these interviews I try to do as fair a job as possible, and the goal is to present the person, not make it an opinion piece. But there's also the opinionated Dave in the background – and I expected to have to tamp down the "union fighting for ironclad job security – BAD!" Instead this was a really interesting and eye opening discussion.

First off, the CEA has a very legitimate concern. That the big worry is incompetent, misguided, and/or lazy implementation and execution of an evaluation system. They should be concerned. Even more important, all of us should share this concern. First off, as Beverly said, we don't have time to do this wrong. Second, a system that randomly fires people will be de-motivating to our teachers, and drive many out. And it will not improve our schools.

On the flip side, we must have a strong effective evaluation system if we are going to fix our schools. That must include robust ongoing thorough of student growth in each classroom. That must include teacher retention being determined by effectiveness. This must include principal and superintendent retention also being determined by effectiveness. We cannot fix our schools without these fundamental changes.

This can be done. Beverly never disagreed with the goals desired by those backing SB-191. Her concerns are with competence. I think we can all agree that SB-191, competently administered, should lead to substantial improvement. I think it's also fair to say that without SB-191 (competently administered), we will be lacking some critical tools to improve our schools. In other words, we need SB-191, and we need it implemented well.

I ask Governor Ritter and the legislature to step up and provide reasonable assurance that this will be properly administered. Keep in mind that I'm representative of a key demographic for support of this bill, a Boulder liberal who supports this bill. And I share the CEA's fear that the state will fuck this up. (I am somewhat familiar with two state departments – one is incompetent and one does nothing. That does not give me warm fuzzies about how well this will be implemented.)

So I still support SB-191. But I would feel a million times better if I had some assurance. And I think the teachers would too. Governor Ritter?

Podcast: Beverly Ingle interview

Educational spending

I threw this together because of a question that came up on Colorado Pols. A big question is – what is the relationship between spending and educational attainment. The raw data can be found at Download Ed spending and is pulled from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011747.html and http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p20-560.pdf

One note, both of the graduation rates are for residents at age 25. This probably skews high school a bit, but college quite a bit more. There's probably more college graduates leaving Idaho than entering it. And probably more entering Colorado than leaving it. The biggest skew is almost certainly Washington DC where 47.5% of the 25 year olds there have a college degree.

High School graduation rate vs. dollars. North Carolina is amazing with the second highest graduation rate and one of the lowest per pupil expenditures. But the giant message here is that the distribution, outside of New York (upper right point) is awfully close to random. The only conclusion is you have to spend over 6K/pupil to get better results. But spending over 6K/pupil has no relation to increased results.

Next is College graduation rate vs. dollars. These are even more clumped in a narrow range of percentage of graduates. This may well be due to graduates moving to where they are needed and the needs of all the states fall in the 15% - 35% band. As such, this graph may not be telling us anything about the job the K-12 schools did in that state.

Finally I came across this table showing K-12 spending increases in constant dollars. Because this is constant dollars any upward slope means in increasing percentage of our tax dollars is going to K-12. Where needed we do need to increase, but if this increases over time forever, that is not sustainable because it will eventually be greater than the entire state budget. This is what led to healthcare becoming this giant financial issue – compound interest will eventually destroy anything.