Lynn Harsh | Evergreen Freedom
Foundation
If you do not subscribe to the Seattle Times, you missed a very important
story yesterday. A year ago, the newspaper began an investigation of sexual
misconduct complaints against teachers. The Times asked ten of the
state's largest school districts for these public records, particularly
sexual misconduct complaints against coaches. The Washington Education Association
(WEA) sued the paper to prevent disclosure of the records.
WEA president Charles Hasse said, "You have to give up a lot to be
a school teacher. There should be some privacy preserved."
In Bellevue, district officials set up "file parties," where teachers
were allowed to purge their records to prevent public disclosure. The Times
reported, "school officials and the state's most powerful union teamed
up behind the scenes to try to hide the files."
Since some teachers have faced untrue allegations about sexual misconduct,
it is important for teachers and their union to keep a watchful eye on what
goes in teacher personnel files. On the other hand, it's so expensive for
districts to get rid of a teacher who is guilty of real misconduct, that
they usually just move them off to another unsuspecting district. This exposes
many innocent children to unnecessary risk.
Allegations against teachers must be thoroughly investigated. Teachers who
are not guilty must be cleared publicly, and those who are guilty as charged
should be relieved of their duties immediately. No union or school district
engaged in the type of "cover-up" behavior described by the Times
can say they're doing it "for the kids." At least not with a straight
face.
Lynn Harsh is the Senior Education Analyst for the
Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"