Steve Bloom/The Olympian
WEA President Lee Ann Prielipp says she's concerned that the funding proposed by the Senate doesn't meet all the needs of public education.

WEA says budget shortchanges teachers

PATRICK CONDON, THE OLYMPIAN

OLYMPIA -- Last November, Washington voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 732, which guaranteed hefty annual raises to the state's public school teachers.

Within months, the state's largest teachers union threatened a strike.

What's wrong with this picture?

Indeed, many state lawmakers have complained that strike threats from the Washington Education Association are inappropriate and politically tone-deaf, coming at a time when the I-732 mandate requires them to pump $349 million into teacher salary increases.

But WEA officials say the pay raises tied to I-732 are only a small piece of the picture, and that overall budgets proposed by both Gov. Gary Locke and Senate Democrats shortchange public education.

Last week, WEA President Lee Ann Prielipp talked with The Olympian about the union's concerns with proposed public education funding and what has led them to threaten a strike.

Q: Do you think this year's budget will defuse the strike talk?

A: The budget that we've heard about so far from the Senate does not meet the needs of public education. There are still major concerns out there about what it means. We're taking the same amount of money and shifting it around. After shifting it around, you still have the same amount of money with maybe some other programs funded or more money in certain areas, but there are no new revenues for education. And that's a concern. We're doing an assessment right now of our members because they're the ones who said they were upset ... . We don't know if it will go to a strike. After our assessment, if there were to be a strike, we'd have to have another vote.

Q: In introducing their budget, the Senate Democrats boasted about $1.1 billion in new money for education -- there's money to fund the class-size mandate in Initiative 728 and the salary increases in Initiative 732. Yet you guys came out immediately against the budget. Tell me specifically what you don't like about it.

A: First of all, it does not fully fund 732. We leave out about 25,000 school employees. That's a lot. Then, secondly, 728 -- the money coming in, what they're going to do is supplant some of the Better Schools fund that was already there. If we take away Better Schools funds, we're taking away some class size pieces, we're taking away professional development, we're taking away programs that are already in place. That's not what we're looking for. We're looking for quality education for all kids in the entire state, and that's not going to do it.

Q: As far as the Better Schools funds issue goes, I've heard legislators make the argument that the passage of 728 essentially renders it irrelevant -- they say the only reason they approved it in the first place was as a contingency plan if 728 did not pass. It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.

A: I think what we're trying to do is produce the most possible funds for schools. I-728 was meant to be new money. If you look at the intent of the initiative, it says it will not supplant Better Schools funds that were already there. If we make that trade, it's supplanting.

Q: Voters approved both of your initiatives, and now you're threatening a strike. Do you worry teachers are running the risk of appearing money-grubbing?

A: Actually, I think the public should be furious with this. They should be the ones that are mad. The initiatives passed, both of them, with huge percentages. Got more votes than the governor did, if you think about it. And yet, they're not being fully funded as people in the public sector thought they were passing. ... I've done several talk shows, both ends of the political spectrum, and the callers all indicated -- whether or not they voted for the initiatives -- they say, "They passed, so they should be funded." I think it's important for the public to understand what is or is not happening with the funding of those initiatives. ... (The spending cap measure passed in 1993) 601 is being followed to the n'th degree. Why can't we have 728 and 732 dealt with the same way?

Q: You have this issue, this dispute with the wording of 732. Is this a fight you're willing to take into the legal arena?

A: Certainly. If we need to, we'll be ready to do that. But you know, the legal is a long process. In two years, a majority vote can change the initiative. What we want right now, today, is the legislators to do what needs to be done. It would certainly be much faster, more expedient, and true to the public's vote.

Q: A few weeks ago, your political arm voted to express regret for your endorsement of Gov. Locke. Now you're criticizing the Senate Democrats' budget. Do you have any concern that you're going to alienate your traditional allies in Olympia?

A: Right now we're making a stand for public schools, for kids, for what's going on in public education. That's where we need to be. We believe that almost to a person, legislators ran on an education platform. But they're not performing as if they had an education platform. So I'm not sure if we're alienating them, or trying to focus them on what it is they said they wanted when they wanted votes.

Q: Gov. Locke's education reform package was not approved in time for the Legislature's committee deadline a few weeks ago, but some supporters have raised the possibility it could be revived this year. Does the WEA think this legislation should be passed?

A: I have no problem with us looking at the code book and finding some things that don't need to be there anymore. However, to throw everything out and start all over again -- I think we'll be spending all our time rebuilding the same doggoned thing.

Q: Obviously teachers have been successful in achieving some major goals last year. Legislators, for their part, complain that conflicting initiatives are a major reason we've got such a difficult budget this year. Any sort of regret on what you did with those initiatives?

A: No regrets whatsoever. None at all. It was clear to us that we weren't getting what needed to be had for public education. We tried other routes -- in fact, we were going to do the initiative a year before but backed off of that and went again this year. It seems to me that any time an initiative can have over 300,000 signatures collected and not one of them paid for -- it was all volunteer, every bit of it -- that there was a need. And if we don't have the leadership that's needed here in Olympia, then it was time to go forward ourselves. No regrets.

Q: Do you see the initiative process as something of a double-edged sword? Initiatives have created a situation that's making you bemoan the lack of money for public education.

A: What we're talking about is a basic funding problem. If we have more leadership out of the lawmakers, we wouldn't have to do the laws by initiatives. So I look at how do we change the funding plan here? What is it that we do to make it much better for all programs? Not just education, but obviously we have a situation where we need to look at how we provide funds for all state programs.

It's really unfortunate that it's come down to social services versus education. We don't want that. Nobody wants that. There are really important programs in this state. And yet, there's never enough money to fund those programs. So why aren't we looking at something for the long-term funding needs of this state?

Lee Ann Prielipp

- Home: Federal Way

- Age: 56

- Occupation: President, Washington Education Association, 1997-present; elementary and middle school teacher, Federal Way School District, 1966-1992.

The Olympian Copyright 2001

back to main Legislature Q&A 2001 index