Erik Fretheim For State Representative, District 41, GOP

Erik Fretheim is running for the seat currently held by Judy Clibborn. Below is information from Erik's website regarding his stand on certain issues.
___________________________________________________
Education

The state needs to improve its support for quality education, and while this district has some of the best public schools in the country, in order to keep it that way we need more support and fewer restrictions. We need to put control closer to the school, which requires stronger funding, with fewer strings. This means keeping “Seattle solutions” and the federal government away from our schools. Education is a local responsibility, best handled locally and supported by the state. While the state should be involved in setting the standards, decisions of how to meet those standards, such as specific curriculum, course offerings, etc. are local responsibilities.

WASL – the WASL is a good concept with a poor execution. It is right to require high standards for the award of a diploma. Those standards need to be consistent throughout the state, but using a single indicator to judge whether students have learned is not the answer. Not only is the WASL a poor measuring tool, it is also poorly written. Any test which places more value on being able to mimic the convoluted thought patterns of the question designer than having the right answer is just plain wrong. The right answer is the right answer and should receive full credit no matter how the answered is arrived at.

Higher Education – This state is failing its future generations concerning higher education. While Washington has done well in creating its community college system, it is among a few states with the lowest student enrollment among 4 year degree programs. The state has not supported enough places for students at its four year colleges; furthermore, it does not have enough 4 year institutions. More schools would allow for increased numbers of students and increased competition between schools for students. This would require schools to become better stewards of state money and allow students to choose the schools that best suit them.

---

Transportation

The state needs to spend money on fixing and expanding roads. A policy which forces people into public transportation by not building enough roads is dead wrong. In the end, it causes congestion, more pollution, and unsafe conditions. When the state does spend money on public transportation, it needs to be on practical, workable solutions, not grandiose schemes with excessive costs, such as rail systems which only come close to the airport. We do not need to take up valuable lanes on the I-90 bridge to put in a rail system which few will ever use and is completely inflexible. Adding rail is seldom a good solution. At the same time, it makes no sense to tear out rails that are already in place, such as the eastside rail corridor. The track is already there, and unless the same people who designed the bus tunnel do it, adding trains and stations could be expensive. A better transportation solution may include a rapid bus transit system which is both cost effective and flexible.

---

Healthcare Reform

This state has to protect its citizens by providing for significant reform in the area of healthcare. Last year there were two separate measures on the ballot that were attempting to do this. They both failed, and failed because they were focused on special interests rather than on helping people. Successful reforms mean that people are protected from malpractice, and are able to obtain redress for the harms that have been done to them, and that doctors and medical practitioners are protected from frivolous lawsuits.

Some people want to do this by setting up barriers, such as a loser-pays-legal costs system. While this would stop some frivolous suites, it would also stop people of limited means with legitimate issues from being able to seek help. It keeps the lawyers happy though because they get paid either way, and the doctors are encouraged to hire as many expensive lawyers as they can to scare away potential litigants. Likewise, others have suggested binding arbitration agreements. Unfortunately these also put a burden on the less wealthy, and put the arbitrators in a position where they are bound to favor the doctors to retain their contracts.

A better solution is to establish an independent review board to establish the merit of each case before it goes into the court system. This board could be comprised of to doctors, two nurses, and two independent non-medical, non-legal people. If any three on the board determine that there is potential merit to a case, it could be brought to court. This would eliminate the filing of frivolous suites. Together with a cap on lawyers fees, caps on non-economic damages, this would provide meaningful legal reform.