MAKING IT WORK
The purpose of this newsletter is to provide information, inspire involvement, and make things work in this great city. You can request additional information or comment on the newsletter by emailing email@example.com.
BUDGET 2012 – WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR
Mayor McGinn has now presented a proposed 2012 budget. The Council will take October and most of November to review and evaluate the Mayor's proposal, and will vote to formally adopt a 2012 budget in mid-November.
The 2012 proposal is part of a 2-year budget cycle. State law provides that the City can only adopt budgets one year at a time, but Seattle does most of its budget work during the years when City officials are not on the ballot, formally adopting a budget for the next year and endorsing a budget for the one after that. The 2012 budget was endorsed in November of 2010, but now must be formally adopted. Traditionally, Mayors propose relatively modest adjustments to the endorsed budget, to meet changed financial and economic circumstances.
But the circumstances of 2012 are different. Budget revisions must be made in the light of the persistent malaise in the national economy, the apparent willingness of Congressional Republicans to run the economy into the ground for political advantage, and the continued dire situation of our state budget deficit.
Two weeks ago, I suggested a series of challenges that the Mayor should meet in crafting a budget in these difficult times. I noted that I wasn't expecting a finished product, but a set of strategies for hard times that will involve the public and the Council as partners in pivoting over the next year to a new Seattle governmental model.
Tough times call for creative new solutions and a willingness to take a risk and do things differently. Last year Council initiated a reinvention of our community centers in the wake of drastic cuts in hours and services proposed in the 2011 budget. We have completed that process and will ratify the new approach to community center operations in this year's budget – an approach that focuses on lean management and matching operations to demand and need in our neighborhoods.
Community centers are not the only thing meriting comprehensive analysis and potential restructuring. The Department of Neighborhoods has long suffered deep budget cuts without a fundamental rethinking of how best to preserve its programs and services. Likewise, the Department of Transportation has fallen behind in its maintenance and operations targets, necessitating new revenues just to keep our roads and bridges in satisfactory condition.
Efficiencies are necessary, but not sufficient. Most departments are already stripped close to the bone; additional cuts without systematic rethinking will seriously harm their ability to deliver basic goods and services. Libraries closed for a week in order to avoid having to close branches. Many city employees have taken mandatory furloughs. These are not financially sustainable answers.
We should evaluate the mayor's budget through a lens of preparing for a future where leanness is the new normal. That means focusing on outcomes, restructuring the way we do business, and matching management reform with flexibility and a continuous improvement model with oversight to make sure it works.
That's not just jargon: it's a demand for hard work and real management from the top on down. It may not be glamorous to reinvent the way we do business, but it is the only way we are going to be able to strengthen our community and build the confidence in the electorate that we will need to convince them when we ask for new resources. They will be rightly skeptical if we cannot demonstrate that we are making government work in this environment in which everyone is feeling the pinch.
Now that we have seen the Mayor's budget, let's see how he did – and what's likely to be debated or at issue in the next few weeks.
What I looked for:
- A continued commitment to core services, like public safety, human services, and neighborhoods.
- A plan to overhaul the Department of Transportation and its budget, management, and accountability procedures.
- A reinvention strategy for the Department of Neighborhoods.
- Extending the community centers reinvention into other areas of the Parks Department.
- A strategy for overhauling the City's hundreds of contracts for human services to ensure that we are targeting for outcomes, not just renewing existing arrangements – along the lines of outcomes measurements incorporated into the Family and Education Levy proposal.
- A clear explanation of how we are going to deliver on the neighborhood policing plan when we cannot fund the number of officers envisaged in the original approach.
- An investment in economic development that will bring new revenues and create new jobs.
What the Mayor delivered:
- Fire Department and Human Services budgets were kept pretty much at their endorsed budget levels. These are important steps to keeping our communities healthy.
- Police personnel, on the other hand were cut by leaving vacant positions open. The Mayor suggested that we are meeting our public safety goals, so do not need to fill these positions. But (see my later point above), these statistics may not accurately reflect reality on the ground – we may be meeting our goals most of the time in most neighborhoods, but may not be meeting them at critical points in time and in 'hot spots'. The neighborhood policing plan included several hard-won concessions from the police union that were to be realized when we reached a level of personnel that we may not attain, including setting schedules so that we have the most police available at the times when there is the most need (summer weekend nights). Which is, of course, the times when police, like the rest of us, want to be on vacation, hence the need to negotiate the agreement. The Council will have to closely examine the Mayor's proposal to see if his metrics really work.
- The Department of Transportation budget was reduced from the endorsed budget, but the Mayor used one-time money available from the sale of property to prevent further cuts. There's not much evidence of significant change in accountability and management, although there are a few steps in that direction. The Council will have to consider whether using one-time money for operations is appropriate, or whether we need to make more drastic cuts and use this money for capital projects. And the Mayor has proposed to spend $1.5 million of the land sale proceeds on planning for high-capacity transit lines – while this is a one-time expenditure that is more appropriate for this kind of funding, the Council will look at what this will actually be used for and how it fits into the long-range plan for transportation improvements.
- The Mayor's budget proposes doing major surgery on the Department of Neighborhoods. Some of this reflects a new approach to our community grants programs, bringing together the granting functions from several Departments, a clear reinvention step that will be both more efficient for the City and easier for community groups to access. Other reductions seem less systematic, and there does not seem to be a clear vision for where DON goes in the future. The Council will take a long hard look at this area.
- Along with the consolidation of grant functions, the Mayor proposes to consolidate the Offices of Economic Development and Housing into a single Department of Housing and Economic Development. The Council will look carefully at whether this works given the similarities in the work of the staff members but differences in mission between the two offices. One question will be whether the same or more savings can be achieved without actually merging the two offices. However it works out, I applaud the Mayor for taking the risk of proposing this controversial idea.
- Reinvention has taken a firm hold in the Parks Department. Along with the community centers changes, which were developed cooperatively with the Council, the Department has proposed a number of other changes that will improve service delivery, foster great engagement with community partners, and provide budget savings. I applaud the Mayor for this follow through, and the Council is likely to look favorably on these changes.
- The Department of Human Services is a strong candidate for reinvention – we have gradually moved to a more systematic method of outcome evaluation for human services programs, and it appears that this is likely to continue. The challenge will be to follow through on making tough decisions to support efficient and effective programs without making mistakes that will have negative impacts on people in need. It's a delicate balance, and the Council will have to watch this area with great care.
- The Mayor proposes to continue the current economic development strategy and programs, and there are indications that there will be some openness to new and creative approaches to economic development (such as permit consolidation and improved service delivery). However, not much of this shows up in the budget, and it is likely to require significant work in 2012 to ensure that this work is carried out.
On balance, there will probably be relatively limited controversy over the final 2012 budget. One indication of this was the budget hearing held on October 4: fewer people showed up to testify than in any budget hearing in recent memory. I am hopeful that the remainder of the budget work will go smoothly, and that the Council and Mayor can work through the fairly modest issues outline above.
Back to Contents
PAID SICK LEAVE: GOOD IDEA, WRONG LEGISLATION
On Monday, September 12, by a vote of 8 to 1 the Council approved legislation requiring Seattle employers to provide paid sick leave days to their employees. I voted against the legislation, although I believe that paid sick leave should be ensured to all people in a humane and just society, and appreciate the work of the advocates who have brought this legislation forward to the Council.
Unfortunately, this legislation does not address the issue in a workable and fair way. Although it has been significantly improved since it was introduced, the legislation falls short of its objectives on the following grounds:
- It does not provide the kind of universal basic standard that has proven to be effective in protecting people in our society
- It is unfair to workers because it provides different benefits depending on the kind of entity they work for
- It does not adequately address public health
- It creates a complex, bureaucratic, and prescriptive system that will be difficult to administer and manage
- It will probably result in reduced benefits and fewer hours for low-wage workers.
For those reasons, I regretfully voted against the legislation. The key problems I see with the current legislation are that it:
- Does not create a system that is universal and fair: Successful social legislation has generally focused on providing a basic universal standard that applies to everyone. Social security and minimum wage legislation are the classic examples. In contrast, this legislation sets up a system that excludes some workers and provides different benefits depending on the size of the workplace
Fails to appropriately address public health. Although the legislation has been promoted as protecting public health, no study has established that there is a significant public health issue that paid sick leave would address. While there may be some benefit, this legislation has a number of exceptions that weaken its effectiveness.
- The proposal differentiates among workers by setting up a tiered system based on the size of the company or organization. A barista who works for a neighborhood espresso stand may get no paid sick leave if the company is small enough, but would get 5 days if s/he went to work for a mid-size company, and 9 days if s/he went to work for a large company. It is difficult to see how this kind of inequality can be justified. Studies of the San Francisco ordinance show that the average worker takes less than 3 days of paid sick leave per year.
- Likewise, the proposal has different requirements for larger employers, with no real justification. There is no clear rationale for requiring an employer with 260 employees to provide more sick leave days than an employer with 50 or even 25. The apparent rationale appears to be that the larger the business or organization, the easier it will be to pay the cost of paid sick leave. That assumption does not take into account differences that do not relate to size. A large restaurant may generate less profit than a small software developing company. And these tiers also affect the wide range of nonprofit organizations.
Is bureaucratically complex and prescriptive: The result of this complexity is legislation that is bureaucratically prescriptive rather than based on the outcome for the workers. Companies and organizations that currently provide benefits may have to redesign their systems to meet the City's requirements. Workers may lose benefits because companies could decide that they must reduce their flexibility in order to be within the letter of the law. An alternative approach would be to adopt a mandate that companies and organizations provide sick leave without creating this kind of bureaucratic model. That would allow the many different kinds of entities to devise systems tailored to their specific needs and those of their employees. The Seattle law is some 38 pages long – other such laws, such as those in Connecticut and DC, are 6 to 8 pages.
Is administratively burdensome: This legislation will apply to employers located in Seattle or those headquartered elsewhere but with employees working at least 240 hours per year within the city. It will be challenging for, say, a landscaping business based in Renton with employees working throughout King County to adequately track the number and location of employee hours. Employers may have to implement different benefits packages for a potentially small percentage of their workforce.
- According to the proponents' own numbers, 39,000 workers, about 20% of those who may receive coverage under this legislation, are directly exempted by the exception for "micro" businesses with 4 employees or less.
- Tens of thousands of others are potentially exempted because the legislation allows the right to paid sick leave days to be negotiated away by management and labor unions in collective bargaining negotiations.
- The legislation sets a different number of required paid sick days based on the size of the business or organization. There is no public health reason to suggest that those who work for larger entities will get sick more often or that those who work for smaller entities will have illnesses of shorter duration.
An additional concern has been raised that such legislation could cost jobs by raising employer costs, or be a factor in deciding whether or not to locate in Seattle or elsewhere in the region. It is hard to evaluate how significant this concern is, and Seattle will remain a great place to do business for many other reasons. However, the risk of possible job impacts is another argument in favor of a system that has less potential costs and management challenges. It also suggests that this legislation would work better at the State rather than City level.
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw and I proposed alternative legislation that would meet the following goals:
- Establish paid sick leave as a best business practice
- Create a universally applied system that is fair and protects the interests of workers
- Create a floor, like the minimum wage, and encourage businesses to go further
- More clearly ensure public health benefits
- Result in a system that is simple, efficient, economical, and manageable.
Unfortunately, we were not able to persuade our colleagues to support this alternative.
I very much appreciate the work of Councilmembers Burgess and Clark in securing amendments that significantly reduced some of the problems with this legislation, and to Councilmember Licata for being willing to be flexible and working out some of these issues. It is better legislation than it was at first, and it will also likely provide benefits to some workers. However, because of the above concerns and possible negative impacts, I regretfully could not support it.
Back to Contents
RESTORING THE LAKE WASHINGTON SALMON FISHERY
After twenty years of research, planning, litigation, and finally construction, the new sockeye hatchery on the Cedar River finally opened this month. Wait, we are celebrating a salmon hatchery? Aren't hatcheries one of the villains of the salmon story?
Yes, hatcheries have been one of the '4H' identified factors of salmon decline, along with habitat loss, hydropower dams, and harvest beyond sustainable levels. Hatchery fish have out-competed native stocks and spread diseases. But there is a new story about hatcheries, and the Cedar River sockeye hatchery, mitigation for the impacts of Landsburg Dam, is part of it.
The new hatchery story is about using hatcheries to supplement wild stocks to create healthy, sustainable, and harvestable populations – using eggs cautiously harvested from the wild stocks during large runs, with monitoring and adaptive management programs to make decisions that support and sustain the wild run along with the hatchery fish.
The Cedar River sockeye hatchery is also emblematic of our own evolution, from seeing humans as separate from nature and nature as something to manipulate, to seeing humans as a part of the natural world. The Cedar River serves us by providing water for Seattle and most of our suburbs. But our part of the deal is to work hard to renew and protect its ecosystems.
Seattle has done that by purchasing all of the land in the watershed above our water supply dams – some 91,000 acres (way more than the area of the City itself!), and negotiating a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) with the federal government and the consent of the Muckleshoot Indian Nation, which has traditional fishing and hunting rights in this area. The core purpose of the HCP is to protect the endangered population of wild Chinook salmon (along with several other species, such as the marbled murrelet). The City protects the upstream ecosystem and provides flows that support salmon migration. The flows are sustained because the City's water conservation programs have reduced water consumption back to the levels of the 1950's, despite serving many more people.
And part of the agreement was building a passage that allows Chinook salmon to enter the reservoir and spawn above the dam, in our water supply – but the channel is designed to prevent sockeye salmon from passing the Landsburg dam and limits that population to reproducing in the river below Landsburg.
There's a reason for this distinction. Cedar River ocean-run sockeye are neither native nor endangered. They were introduced from the Baker River in 1935, and replaced the former fishery based on kokanee (lake-spawning) sockeye. Although much larger than the Chinook population, the sockeye population has never produced enough salmon to sustain fishing every year, and in 1991 a temporary hatchery was constructed on the Cedar to supplement the natural spawning. The new hatchery, which cost $7.9 million, replaces that temporary facility, with double the capacity and a much more sophisticated design and operating plan.
The temporary hatchery made sport and tribal fisheries possible in 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. But returning sockeye have dropped to 44,000 by 2011, well below the 350,000 needed to sustain a fishery and still allow for reproduction. The negotiated goal of the new hatchery is to make that fishery possible on a consistent basis. Returning adults selected for the hatchery will only be taken in large numbers when the runs are large enough to sustain that. They will be selected from all portions of the run and in a manner that minimizes effects on the migration and spawning of natural origin salmon.
This hatchery is an elegant compromise that meets a number of goals. It offers the possibility of creating a sustainable fishery without compromising natural runs. It also protects Seattle's water supply, which can handle the relatively small number of spawning Chinook above Landsburg Dam but possibly not tens of thousands of sockeye. It supports recovery of the endangered Chinook run. And it meets our treaty obligations to the Muckleshoots and offers the opportunity for a sport fishery that will foster people's understanding of the natural cycle and their commitment to protecting it.
It's not surprising that hundreds of people came to the official opening, representing the tribe, several agencies and governments, and many members of the public. Seattle Public Utilities staff deserve great credit for their creativity, persistence, and strategic thinking in making this project happen.
Back to Contents
THE SEATTLE FOR WASHINGTON STRATEGY
In 2010 the City Council launched a project to change the relationship between Seattle and the rest of the State. We call this strategy 'Seattle for Washington'. Our goal is to reach out to local governments and state legislators around the state to emphasize the importance of Seattle to Washington – and to emphasize that we care about what happens in other areas of our state. By building relationships and opening dialogue, we hope to reduce conflict and create opportunities for positive and constructive working relationships.
Too often in the past, Seattle has just tried to get what we want from the legislature. Sometimes we have been successful by forging coalitions on particular issues, but often we have found ourselves treated with indifference or even hostility. Changing that requires building relationships. It also requires that we not only ask for support for our priorities, but are open to lending our support to others, even if we are not particularly interested in their issue. It's a two-way street.
We implemented the 'Seattle for Washington' strategy by identifying nine areas of the state where we wanted better communication with local governments and legislators. Each Councilmember was assigned a specific area, and asked to take a couple of days during the year to travel to that area to meet with the local officials.
I was assigned to the Spokane area, and spent two days there, meeting with Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, Mayor Mary Verner, Council President Joe Shogan, and Councilmembers Richard Rush, John Snyder, and Amber Waldref. We talked about the role of government as an agent of economic development, using local food production and food-related business development to strengthen urban-rural connections, and working together on fiscal issues and preserving critical state revenue distributions to local governments.
Councilmembers traveled to Olympia as a group on two days during the legislative session, splitting up into pairs to meet with key legislators. Councilmembers Tom Rasmussen and Jean Godden have been active as Board members of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), carrying our message to other cities, and Councilmember Rasmussen and I attended the AWC annual convention.
Our 'Seattle for Washington' work helped generate a very productive relationship with the legislature in 2011, and garnered significant legislative successes. My hope is that we are making a long-range commitment to this effort – the more we work at it, the more benefits we can expect, for Seattle – and for Washington.
PS Credit for the phrase 'Seattle for Washington' goes to Stephanie Pure, who came up with it when we were talking about how to improve Seattle's relationships with the legislature. Thanks, Stephanie!
Back to Contents
FOOD POLICY COUNCIL AND URBAN AG FORUM
Local food initiatives continue to flourish in both the public and private sectors!
Creating public policy
This month marks the one-year anniversary for the Regional Food Policy Council (RFPC), our unique approach to developing a coordinated strategy to promote public policy supporting local, healthy food in our region. The RFPC is organized under the Puget Sound Regional Council (the four-county planning group for the Seattle metropolitan area), and includes some 30 representatives of government, business, labor, farm, and public interest groups.
The RFPC has met monthly since last September, and is just poised to begin its first major policy work. The first few months were devoted to learning about the agriculture programs in King, Kitsap, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties, crafting a mission statement, and adopting vision and goal statements. In August, the RFPC formed subcommittees on Agriculture, Economic Development, and Equity – three key areas for policy development.
In addition to these activities, the RFPC and staff reviewed and commented on proposed King County and national indicators for community food systems, collaborated with a graduate studio at the UW to develop an existing conditions report and food system assessment, developed a methodology to organize existing food-related policies based on a review of codes and plans from more than 50 cities within the region, and compiled an online directory of food policy research and reports.
The subcommittees will be recommending action items over the next few weeks, and the RFPC will make recommendations based on these to cities, counties, and the private sector for policy actions that will improve our system for growing, processing, and distributing food.
Advancing farming and business development
On Monday, September 19, my office hosted an Urban Agriculture Business Forum at City Hall. More than 90 participants came together to discuss City services, programs, policies, and regulations impacting urban agriculture and associated businesses. City planning, economic development, and neighborhoods staff were present, along with representatives from public health and WSU extension.
The turnout was way beyond our wildest expectations! In addition to sharing information and learning about City work, participants were excited about creating a sector development strategy for urban ag. They also talked about developing a business directory and an urban agriculture business association to further communication, coordinate business development, and help design City policies that will facilitate continued growth of businesses associated with local food in Seattle. Thanks to Phyllis Shulman in my office and Eva Ringstrom, our summer intern, for organizing this forum!
Back to Contents
SWEDES NAME SEATTLE AS 'GREENEST CITY IN NORTH AMERICA'
The City of Vaxjo, Sweden has been named the 'Greenest City in Europe', and in September hosted the 'Greenest Cities Worldwide' 2011 Conference. Based on information from ICLEI, the international organization of Local Governments for Sustainability, Vaxjo identified and invited the greenest city from each of the other five continents to present at the conference.
Seattle was honored to be named as the green city representative for North America, and I spoke at the conference on Thursday, September 14. The other four cities are:
- City of Darwin, Australia, Australia
- City of Curitiba, Brazil, South America
- City of Durban, South Africa, Africa
- City of Singapore, Singapore, Asia
It is honor to receive this international recognition for our work in energy, transportation, climate protection, and other sustainability efforts. It's a great group of cities to be in the same league with.
I learned a lot from Vaxjo about their work, as well as from the representatives of the other cities. While in Sweden, I also spent a couple of days in Stockholm, looking at some of their green initiatives. No City funds were used for this trip. Vaxjo paid for my travel, and I personally funded the time in Stockholm.
Here's what Vaxjo says they have done to deserve the designation of 'greenest city in Europe':
"The carbon dioxide emissions per capita in Växjö are less than half of the average of the industrial countries in the EU and almost a fourth of that of the U.S. The goal is to become completely free from fossil fuel by year 2030. The municipality of Växjö works continuously with:
- Efficient energy usage
- Continuous and increasing work with sustainable transport alternatives
- Organic and locally cultivated foods in the kitchens of the municipality
- Wooden housing
- Development of greenbelts
- Increased share of renewable sources of energy
- New alternatives within renewable sources of energy
- Coordinated transportation within the municipality operations."
Back to Contents
CARBON NEUTRAL BLOG POST 13: HOUSEHOLD ACTIONS MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Much of the work on climate change has focused on making major policy or systems level changes that will have dramatic impacts on carbon emissions. Critical as it is to change emissions systems, create new technologies, develop energy efficient buildings, or provide better travel options and renewable energy systems, most such big ideas require people to take action to implement them. As the saying might go, 'you can lead a community to a low carbon future, but you can't make them stop emitting carbon'.
But there are lots of actions that people can take that do not require systems change, and may form the best foundation for making systems change happen. In 2009, a group of scientists developed a model for specific actions that people can take without major new technological or policy inventions. They published an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled 'Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions'.
The article suggests that a set of behavioral changes that could be taken right now would reduce US carbon emissions by some 7.4% -- an amount, they note, "slightly larger than the total national emissions of France". These savings can be realized at a very low cost using current technology and without significant changes in lifestyle.
We can jump start our work on a multi-year strategy to achieve carbon neutrality by developing a household and community based campaign around these actions.
Fortunately, Seattle has a tremendous resource in our community based organizations that are committed to working on carbon neutrality, and the City can collaborate with these groups to achieve these kinds of victories. And nothing succeeds like success: as people grow more confident about their ability to make change, and as carbon neutrality becomes less of an abstraction and more or an achievable goal, people will become more willing to tackle the big changes and to advocate for local and national policies.
That's a lesson that we have learned from the history of social change endeavors: find ways to empower people and communities, and change will become much more possible.
The article's authors suggest 17 steps in five categories that individuals can take. Some of these can be greatly assisted by community or governmental action (such as weatherization and other home energy reduction steps). They include:
- Reducing the energy used in home heating, including attic weatherization, sealing drafts, installing high-efficiency windows, and replacing inefficient equipment as it wears out.
- Upgrading the efficiency of appliances, equipment, and motor vehicles at the end of their useful life.
- Maintenance, such as changing air filters in HVAC systems and properly maintaining vehicles.
- Adjustments in equipment operation, such as reducing temperatures on laundry facilities and hot water heaters.
- Changes in daily behaviors, such as eliminating standby electricity, carpooling, trip chaining, and line drying.
As pointed out above, the authors note that many of these actions can receive an important boost by governments, through information and incentives. However, they also suggest that adoption will require effective social marketing and networking.
Seattle's work on recycling and waste reduction has demonstrated that much of the positive results we have achieved have been the result of the combination of the effective use of pricing and program design with education and a major community campaign built around the core values of Seattle residents relating to environmental quality and conservation. With an effective and growing movement of many community organizations devoting attention to issues of climate change, we are well positioned to foster community and individual action around the kinds of relatively quick and painless steps cited in this article.
Based on the authors' assessment of a reasonable rate of adoption for the measures they review, they conclude that we could reduce carbon emissions by more than 5% in five years, and reach the 7.4% target (about 20% of household emissions) in ten years. This could not only be a valuable contribution to combating climate change, but a great model for other industrialized countries, and an excellent way to get more people involved in advocating for and embracing the kinds of major changes that we will need to make over the coming decades. Action to challenge climate change requires major public involvement. Giving people real actions that they can take and using community and social networking to make this a social norm is a vital part of moving towards carbon neutrality. One of our key tasks, then, is to build on the emerging networks in Seattle and help them extend and expand their community engagement activities.
Back to Contents
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you.
But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory…
Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
-- Elizabeth Warren
It is not sufficient that the state of affairs we seek to promote should be better than the state of affairs which preceded it; it must be sufficiently better to make up for the evils of the transition."
-- John Maynard Keynes
Your Seattle City Councilmember
Back to Contents
Back to MAKING IT WORK Newsletters