I said it all along - this campaign is about the issues. I have major differences with Brett Davis on at least a half dozen of 'em. Let's start with K-12 funding reform.
First, where do we agree? We agree that the formula needs to be revised. We agree that there will need to be compromise among the interest groups and between the Republicans and Democrats who must act on it. And nearly all observers agree that we need to take pressure off property taxes.
Brett recently came up with the outline of a plan. Some of my friends, and critics for whom I have respect, mildly, and some not so mildly, chastised me for not having given Brett credit for putting out a plan. OK, fair enough. He came out with a plan. So what's my beef?
Let's put aside for now components of the plan. He hatched his plan in near isolation without participation of major interest groups, stakeholders if you will. Without participation of major stakeholders, including legislators who must act on it if it is to get anywhere, even the best plan in the world will go nowhere - and probably not even serve as a basis for serious discussion.
Many moons ago, while a graduate student at the University of California, I served a stint as a committee staffer with the California Legislature. Some years later I served a stint in the Pentagon as economic advisor to the assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Fourteen years of my career as an economist was as an academic department head. And I have served on more boards, committees and commissions than I can count. If there is one axiom that stands out loud and clear from those experiences it is: If you want to achieve constructive change on a complex issue, the stakeholders must be involved in the process - before the fact, not after.
So who are the stakeholders here? Let's start with the students, and the parents who are concerned with the quality of their education. The PTO's need to be brought in. The taxpayers who foot the bill obviously need to weigh in.
Of the specific interest groups, or stakeholders, that come to mind is the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), colloquially known as "The Teachers' Union." Forget about any bones you might have to pick with the union. Let's talk pragmatic politics. The union is undoubtedly the most influential and powerful of the specific interest groups. That also means they have major responsibility. And they have much to lose in the absence of reform through program and staff cuts resulting from failed referenda. The union may not get everything it wants in the process, but neither will any other group.
Other interest groups include, but are not limited to, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, The School District Administrators Alliance, and the executive branch of government through the Department of Public Instruction.
If we are serious about K-12 funding reform, major stakeholders, including key legislators of both parties who are crucial to its passage, must have a seat at the table and a sense of ownership in the outcome.
To put it another way, the final product will neither be the brainchild of any individual legislator, nor the exclusive product of Republicans or Democrats. It will be an amalgam of give and take in which all participants can share the credit for successful K-12 funding reform - and take the heat for perceived deficiencies.
To put together such a plan with the involvement of these stakeholders is a tall order, a daunting task. But it is not as impossible as first appears. The need is obvious and some groundwork already has been done. The Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools is a statewide coalition working for comprehensive school-funding reform. It consists of school districts, educators, parents, students and voters. Since it already is a working coalition, its previous work and ongoing effort would seem to be a logical starting point.
Can a bunch of politicians thrown together in that tinderbox on the hill in Madison, where "power" is the name of the game, pull it off? Surely, we are not so naive as to believe that all will go smoothly and be peaches and cream.
But let's give these much-maligned worthies more credit than that. They - and as a candidate, I should say "we," - go through this meat grinder of a process to get elected because we want to make a positive difference for our respective districts, and for the state as a whole.
We need to remember that voters don't give a hoot who gets credit or blame. They want, expect and deserve results. The need for K-12 funding reform is way overdue. Politics is the art of the possible. And pragmatic politics demand that the stakeholders have a seat at the table.
It's way past time to get on the pragmatic road to reform.
- John Waelti of Monroe is a Democratic candidate for the 80th Assembly District.
First, where do we agree? We agree that the formula needs to be revised. We agree that there will need to be compromise among the interest groups and between the Republicans and Democrats who must act on it. And nearly all observers agree that we need to take pressure off property taxes.
Brett recently came up with the outline of a plan. Some of my friends, and critics for whom I have respect, mildly, and some not so mildly, chastised me for not having given Brett credit for putting out a plan. OK, fair enough. He came out with a plan. So what's my beef?
Let's put aside for now components of the plan. He hatched his plan in near isolation without participation of major interest groups, stakeholders if you will. Without participation of major stakeholders, including legislators who must act on it if it is to get anywhere, even the best plan in the world will go nowhere - and probably not even serve as a basis for serious discussion.
Many moons ago, while a graduate student at the University of California, I served a stint as a committee staffer with the California Legislature. Some years later I served a stint in the Pentagon as economic advisor to the assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Fourteen years of my career as an economist was as an academic department head. And I have served on more boards, committees and commissions than I can count. If there is one axiom that stands out loud and clear from those experiences it is: If you want to achieve constructive change on a complex issue, the stakeholders must be involved in the process - before the fact, not after.
So who are the stakeholders here? Let's start with the students, and the parents who are concerned with the quality of their education. The PTO's need to be brought in. The taxpayers who foot the bill obviously need to weigh in.
Of the specific interest groups, or stakeholders, that come to mind is the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), colloquially known as "The Teachers' Union." Forget about any bones you might have to pick with the union. Let's talk pragmatic politics. The union is undoubtedly the most influential and powerful of the specific interest groups. That also means they have major responsibility. And they have much to lose in the absence of reform through program and staff cuts resulting from failed referenda. The union may not get everything it wants in the process, but neither will any other group.
Other interest groups include, but are not limited to, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, The School District Administrators Alliance, and the executive branch of government through the Department of Public Instruction.
If we are serious about K-12 funding reform, major stakeholders, including key legislators of both parties who are crucial to its passage, must have a seat at the table and a sense of ownership in the outcome.
To put it another way, the final product will neither be the brainchild of any individual legislator, nor the exclusive product of Republicans or Democrats. It will be an amalgam of give and take in which all participants can share the credit for successful K-12 funding reform - and take the heat for perceived deficiencies.
To put together such a plan with the involvement of these stakeholders is a tall order, a daunting task. But it is not as impossible as first appears. The need is obvious and some groundwork already has been done. The Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools is a statewide coalition working for comprehensive school-funding reform. It consists of school districts, educators, parents, students and voters. Since it already is a working coalition, its previous work and ongoing effort would seem to be a logical starting point.
Can a bunch of politicians thrown together in that tinderbox on the hill in Madison, where "power" is the name of the game, pull it off? Surely, we are not so naive as to believe that all will go smoothly and be peaches and cream.
But let's give these much-maligned worthies more credit than that. They - and as a candidate, I should say "we," - go through this meat grinder of a process to get elected because we want to make a positive difference for our respective districts, and for the state as a whole.
We need to remember that voters don't give a hoot who gets credit or blame. They want, expect and deserve results. The need for K-12 funding reform is way overdue. Politics is the art of the possible. And pragmatic politics demand that the stakeholders have a seat at the table.
It's way past time to get on the pragmatic road to reform.
- John Waelti of Monroe is a Democratic candidate for the 80th Assembly District.
