Comments for Ross Hunter

Comment on Educational Goals: penny-wise and pound-foolish decisions by Ross

Ross — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:16:35 +0000

The provision eliminating the writing test was eliminated from the bill before it passed out of committee. Rep. Pat Sullivan (our Majority leader in the House) proposed the amendment.

Comment on K-12 Funding Proposal – Local Levy Swap by Ross

Ross — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:29:04 +0000

I will try to create some overview links, though it is very, very hard to come up with a working knowledge of the system quickly if you don’t have tutors to help you understand the nuances as well as the political implications of how everything works.

I don’t typically release spreadsheets because the numbers can be “adjusted” and then presented as my work, but I can understand the interest here. I’ll track down a set and put them out.

Comment on K-12 Funding Proposal – Local Levy Swap by rodneyr

rodneyr — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:13:16 +0000

It’d also be helpful to link to an overview of how our schools are funded today. I feel like my knowledge on the topic is very spotty, and I suspect most other constituents feel similarly (or are mistakenly over-confident in their knowledge of the topic, given its apparent complexity).

Comment on K-12 Funding Proposal – Local Levy Swap by rodneyr

rodneyr — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:52:45 +0000

Nice. I’d like to play with the numbers in the spreadsheets a bit; is there any chance you could make those files available in some spreadsheet format (or tab-delimited format, for easy importing into a spreadsheet)?

Ideally I’d like to see schools substantially supported by a highly progressive income tax like I-1098; obviously that didn’t work out last year, but I hope we can come back around to something like it in the future. In the mean time, a shift like you suggest is likely our best bet.

Comment on Progress on 520, not without controversy by carls

carls — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:22:01 +0000

You can find some more information about the 92nd Ave Roundabout here:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=595082707&sk=wall#!/pages/Citizens-Protecting-Safety-and-Character-of-the-Points-Communities/213964148653391

Comment on Progress on 520, not without controversy by carls

carls — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:10:12 +0000

Ross, the WS-DOT document regarding the proposed 92nd Ave Roundabout does not provide credible justification for a Roundabout at 92nd Ave, nor is the description of the process and community involvement accurate. The WS-DOT document gives two reasons for the Roundabout:
(1) to replace and upgrade the transit drop-off area (Kiss & Ride); and
(2) to safely and efficiently move traffic and pedestrians through a five-point intersection.
On point (1), the Kiss & Ride on the lid is fine and can be fully accommodated without a Roundabout.
Point (2) is a mis-leading description of what is needed. We have a through street (92nd Ave) with modest traffic and a one-way freeway offramp. The other two streets are cul-de-sacs with little traffic and don’t need to be part of the same intersection. The off-ramp has operated safely and efficiently as a T-intersection controlled by a stop sign. There have been zero pedestrian or bicycle accidents in the past five years, and one single fender-bender. This is no safety improvement for pedestrians or bicyclists, and definitely inconvenience and increased complexity for pedestrians, bicyclists and even motorists. The intersection does not meet many criteria for when a roundabout is called for.
475 Yarrow Point residents (cf ~700 registered voters, 420 votes in last general election) have signed a petition asking WS-DOT to eliminate the Roundabout. If a stop-signed controlled T-intersection can safely meet the auto traffic levels, cannot the community select a design which we feel preserves the character of our community and is friendlier for pedestrians and bicyclists?
A proper design-build contract allows for reductions in scope, which is what we are asking. The design is not far along. Our town engineer says that there have not been drawings to scale yet. Construction of the Roundabout wasn’t scheduled until next year.
Our community did not know this was coming, and even conceptual drawings were not made public until this Spring, which has led to the community rallying in opposition to a 120 foot diameter Roundabout. What people had expected was more like the 40-foot Hunts Point traffic circle, and even our Town Council didn’t know what was coming.
This is an opportunity for WS-DOT to listen to strong community sentiment, and community self-determination, instead of telling us what was decided for us via some process none of us had access to. And to save some money by not building an unnecessary, unwanted Roundabout.

Comment on State Employee Compensation and Benefits by Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:04:39 +0000

Two corrections, sir.

You wrote: “Wisconsin’s state capital is in flames (not really, but figuratively) because the governor proposes requiring employees to contribute 12.8% of the cost of the premiums for their health care plans, among other cuts.”

Actually, the conflict in Wisconsin is because the governor is trying to strip public servants of their collective bargaining rights. The unions have already agreed to ALL economic concessions the governor has asked for — as did state workers here in Washington.

You wrote: “I believe it is inappropriate at this time to give raises to people instead of protecting services for vulnerable, at-risk children.”

Actually, nobody is getting a pay raise. Everybody — from the custodian to the agency director — is getting a pay cut, and compensation for public servants is in a steady decline.

Otherwise, I think you describe the process well. Keep up the good work.

Comment on Best new news service: Undead Olympia by Undead Olympia

Undead Olympia — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:33:01 +0000

Glad to see we are part of the struggle for your mortal soul! Have you ever noticed that if you put the state seal to your ear, you can hear the screaming of the most vulnerable among us? You also pick up some grumbling from parents who think their children are gifted, but I think they just like the sound of their own indignant howls.

Comment on Answering Email by BethRR

BethRR — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:56:23 +0000

When the legislature adopted HB 2261 in 2009 weren’t you saying that decided that gifted education IS basic education?? An education appropriate to their aptitude is just as important for kids who are at the high end of the academic spectrum as for kids with learning disabilities. While it’s true that the cost you just voted to strike from the budget is relatively small, the impact is significant. In Seattle, for example, the state money covers entrance testing — and without it the district has indicated that there will be no new students in the program.

As you work through the tough budget choices, please remember that education funding directly forms our future. There is a documented relationship between education and economic growth — so it is critical to Washington’s economic future to ensure that all kids are educated in such a way that they may live up to their maximum potential. To ensure that all students have that opportunity, we have to provide skill/developmental appropriate education for the entire spectrum of children’s needs. In this difficult fiscal environment, it may seem tempting to cut programs that support the needs of kids who perform at the higher end of the spectrum — but this would be short-sighted. And it is just plain against democratic principles to refuse to meet the educational needs of a particular group, no matter how small.

Thank you for all your hard work as in the legislature, without a good education I’m sure you would find it quite difficult to resolve complex issues. Please re-consider your thinking about eliminating funding for gifted education. Thank you!

Comment on Answering Email by David_Berg

David_Berg — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:23:00 +0000

I’m the President of the Academic Booster Club of Puyallup, the parent organization for families of highly capable students in the Puyallup School District. I also had the privilege of serving on the State’s Highly Capable Technical Working Group. I completely agree that highly capable progamming needs to be a part of the state’s approach to basic education. There are highly capable students in every district in the state, but currently only about 2/3rds of those districts apply for and receive state funding. We need to make sure that highly capable programming is available to all who qualify, not just those who happen to live in the right district.

I’m puzzled, however, by the funding numbers you cite. You write that the state spends $30 million annually on highly capable programming. The state budgeted $18.3 million for the two year period from 2009 – 2011, and as not all districts apply for funding, will actually spend less than that. The state funds up to 2.314% of a district population; local districts supplement that and serve on average about 5% of total enrollment (about 50,000 students in the most recent state report). Nationally, about 10% of students participate in gifted programming. If we’re going to treat this program as part of basic education, as we should, it’s important that we provide the funding necessary to reach all the students — regardless of their cultural and linguistic groups, their socio-economic status, or their possible disabling conditions — who need this programming.