The Seattle Times, the P.I., the Mukilteo Beacon, The Bellingham Herald, King 5 News and KNDO TV News out of Yakima have all done stories on the so called "collective bargaining" bill. Check them out. They can all be seen on-line. Robert Mak's King 5 television Sunday morning television show will highlight this subject. Other publications are also set to go to print on the story.
http://www.mukilteobeacon.com/22008child.html
http://www.kndu.com/
http://www.king5.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=221521&shu=1
I'm taken by the "words" and how they are used to obfuscate factual information. Is it deliberate? For example, last year the Department of Early Learning (DEL) announced on their website how they came out on a national exam (if you will for the purpose of making this understandable) on Washington State's child care standards and oversight. DEL touted the "happy" news that Washington State came in 4th. However, DEL, neglected (was it deliberate?) to inform Washington's citizen's that the number 4 spot came with the grade of an "F".
RCW 43.215.535 came with the caption in the bill that year that child care complaints were to be made accessible to parents on a website. At the end of that RCW it tells you that "captions are not law". If you read the law it's says enforcement actions are to be on a website. If you look up the RCW's definition of "enforcement" it has to do with revocation, denial, suspension, modification of license and civil penalties. The bill was passed in 2005. Not one notification of enforcement action has been found on the website. Is that deliberate?
This current "collective bargaining" bill states it's an act to improve the quality of child care; and that family home child care improved as a result of the similar 2006 bill. There is no data to back that up, the only data found so far shows no improvement as a result of SEIU. Is that deliberate?
What's with the swirly twirly language?
No comments:
Post a Comment