Well, it was almost embarrassing. I mean, I felt
bad for these other groups. Yeah, but you weren't
embarrassed, were you? No. No. No, I was happy
to see their anguished rage. As we twisted them
into... And the gnashing of teeth. People were
just like... The wailing. Oh, it was... You couldn't...
I mean, I was like, turn it up. Oh, yeah. Turn
the volume up. I want to hear it. Welcome to
County Connection, the official podcast of the
Washington State Association of Counties, where
we dive into the legislative issues shaping the
future of our communities. From budgets to public
safety, infrastructure to elections, we'll break
down what's happening in Olympia and how it impacts
counties from across the Evergreen State. Stay
informed, stay engaged, and join us as we amplify
the voice of Washington's 39 counties. official
podcast of the Washington State Association of
Counties. And like I like to say, the number
one podcast on county issues in Washington State.
Have no idea if that's true. Undisputed champion.
But we're claiming it. Undisputed champion. Thank
you. Thank you. I'm Paul Jewell, the government
relations director of the Washington State Association
of Counties and your host. And in case you didn't
recognize that voice you heard just a moment
ago. Sultry tones. I don't know about that. A
soothing cadence. I don't know. I think some
people might describe it that way. Others might
say nails on a chalkboard. They hear that voice,
they just tune out. Hopefully you don't do that
on this podcast. No, tune in. Tune in. Stay tuned.
Yeah. Broadbanks, how are you? I'm good, Paul.
How are you? Yeah, I'm good. I'm good. Happy
cutoff. Happy cutoff indeed. Yeah. What was that?
Two days ago now? It was. It feels like it was
only moments ago. And it needed to happen. I
mean, it was building. It was building and building.
Every session it needs to happen. It does. Yeah,
it does. But it felt good. Yeah. Well, you had
especially good reason to feel good. But before
we get into that, let's kind of dive in. Just
to remind folks, you work on human services issues
for us and law and justice, public safety issues
for us. And you have for the last couple of years.
Yeah. Great part of the team. Always fun to have
on the podcast. This year you've been working
on a couple – well, at least one priority, right?
And that's jail medical costs. That's right.
And funding for that. Tell us how that's going.
Yeah, it's going – well, it's going. I mean,
you know, it's one of those things where – A
number of our members brought this issue to us
saying, hey, in our counties, we're trying to
operate our jails. We've got contractors, in
many instances, doing this work to provide jail
medical costs, and it's just getting really,
really expensive. And the more we dug into why
it was getting more and more expensive, it really
was, at its core, a liability issue. It was really
difficult to try to get. a local community provider,
which is really the ideal choice to provide jail
medical services because they couldn't get the
liability insurance they need to operate in that
space. And so many counties are left with contracting
with a very expensive out -of -state firm to
do the work. And it's not to say they don't provide
good care, but it's definitely care at a cost,
right? Why would an out -of -state firm be able
to come in and provide services to one of our
county's Whereas, I mean, I can see maybe how
a small local provider couldn't because of the
liability cost. But aren't there other larger
providers in state that could do something like
that? There are. And it's a question we've, you
know, I agree. And, you know, really and honestly,
as we've been having this conversation, we've
considered groups like the hospitals, right,
who we know, you know, I mean, and the liability.
We had liability conversations with them. And
I was like, man, is it really riskier to provide?
medical services in a jail than to provide medical
services in an active emergency room or an intensive
care unit or any of these other things. So, yeah.
What was their answer? Nothing. Sort of like,
yeah, I don't know. Maybe we'd have to see the
numbers. And I feel like that's that's I've gotten
that answer more than once. It's sort of like,
well, we need to look at the numbers. Let's and
the state, I think, as we've been talking to
some of our state partners and our agency partners,
for example, the Office of Insurance Commissioner,
they're sort of like, yeah, we don't have any
data from the counties in terms of, you know,
kind of what their liability exposure is or what's
driving their liability exposure. So if we're
going to help you with that, we're going to need
to start to see some of that, right? We're going
to have to see what that landscape looks like,
and then we can maybe start to determine where
some of the problems are. So a lot of this, I
think, has been kind of a learning curve to try
to figure out, okay, what is driving? We think
we know what's driving the problem, right? We
have a tort environment in our state that lends
itself to really large payouts, potentially,
which both the state and locals have been suffering
from for some time. And so there's certainly
that. piece of it. But, you know, for example,
another quandary that we've had is behavioral
health services seem to be offered pretty easily
in our jails by providers, many, almost all of
them by local providers in some form or another.
And they don't seem to be running into the same
issue. The same liability issue. The same liability
issue. Yeah. So it's, there's some complexities
here that I think we're still trying to... kind
of figure out on the fly as we're trying to have
these conversations with legislators around,
hey, this is something we do on your behalf.
It's really hurting us financially because we're
left to really very few vendors that are willing
to do this and their costs are very high. So
this liability issue, the cost of liability potentially
or even the availability of liability insurance
for some of the providers and maybe even apathy
on the... part of other providers who could potentially
be players in this has led to really a competition
issue. Yeah, I mean, essentially there's basically
one provider that many counties use under different
names as they operate in the state. And yeah,
I mean, it's very much a... If you're one provider,
you can kind of – You've got a monopoly, right?
Yeah, I mean you can charge what you've got to
charge. Yeah, and I will say even they – I mean
to your earlier point, it's not that they're
unaware of the liability risk either. They have
been very clear that they are continually reevaluating
whether or not doing business in Washington State
is good for them despite – I'm sure, making some
good money, but the risk is there, right? And
I suppose they use that as a springboard for
higher costs. Yeah, for sure. So, yeah, and I
think the other piece, you know, we talk about
this in terms of cost a lot, but I really do
think there's a care component here, too, that
counties are really interested in in terms of,
you know, a local entity that's able to coordinate
care with an individual, you know, before, while
they're in jail, as they're getting ready to
be released from jail and post -release. is really
a much better model in terms of not only providing
care for that individual, but ensuring that they
potentially don't get back into scenarios that
might bring them right back into the jail environment,
especially if we're dealing with substance abuse
issues or something along those lines. And, you
know, a lot of these folks have a lot of co -occurring
disorders, right, or co -occurring incidents,
whether they have health issues, mental health
issues, substance abuse issues. There could be
a variety of, right, a mix. And so really some
of these folks are probably pretty complex. By
having a local connection for them, both during
their time while they're in jail, but after they're
released, to be able to maintain that level of
care, I think really is important. Again, not
just for the individual, but for counties to
not have to hopefully see that individual again
back in their criminal justice system. Yeah,
that's kind of that continuity of care piece,
right? It's also that warm handoff they talk
about. Rather than just, okay, you're incarcerated.
Okay, you're not. Boom, here's your clothes and
everything you had when you walked in. And, you
know, the bus stops that way. That's right. Good
luck. Well, you know, you keep your same provider.
Here's your contact information for maybe somebody
who is helping you with your mental health. You're
somebody who is, you know, working with you on
your personal physical health. Right. I mean,
you think about it. Right. I mean, you know,
prison is a place, you know, it's a place to,
you know, quote unquote, serve your time. Right.
Or jail place to do that. But also, I think.
fundamentally as a system, we believe it's also
an opportunity for rehabilitation, right? And
a big part of that can be your physical rehabilitation
as well, right? And, you know, when you're dealing
with a lot of these other substance abuse or
mental health issues, you know, the ability to
keep that individual healthy and, you know, in
control as they... reenter society right that
really should be the goal right um and to give
them every opportunity to not find themselves
in a bad scenario especially if those were majoring
major contributing factors exactly which the
vast majority probably are frankly um so yeah
So we're working on it. We're hopeful to get
some movement this session to kind of help us
focus this effort over the interim, I think,
to try to bring back some proposals. So what's
that going to take the form of, do you think?
Well, I think probably a budget proviso. That's
what we've been pursuing, policy direction. We're
trying to do something that's cost neutral as
best we can, recognizing the state's fiscal scenario,
but trying to direct cities, counties. Office
of Insurance Commissioner, I think we just had
a good conversation with the director of the
health care authority about this at our roundtable
meeting. And he was more than interested in having
the conversation and seeing if they could be
helpful in the role that they play with insurance
providers and others. So, yeah, I think trying
to bring stakeholders together so that we can
work on something to bring back to the legislature
in the form of whether that's... a proposal for
sort of a state -backed liability pool or just
something to try to help counties get this really
unwieldy cost under control. So it's interesting
that you mentioned Proviso because we just heard
we're supposed to be seeing budgets come out
on Sunday. Thursday. Which is weird, right? Yeah,
it's a little weird. Do you remember the last
time they came out on Sunday? I don't. I was
like, maybe I just don't pay attention enough
that they always come out on Sunday. Or maybe
we block it mentally. Right, right. But I'm like,
I don't think so. Because you know what that
means, right? Yeah, yeah. Well, we'll be working
on Sunday. I know what it means, yeah. But yeah,
I don't think that's... That's not norm. I don't
think that's norm. I don't remember the last
time they did that. Yeah, I've seen them come
out on Saturday. Yes. I've seen that happen,
but I can't remember the last time they came
out on a Sunday. That's the 22nd. Today we're
at the 19th, so it's Thursday. So it's really
only a couple of days away when we'll be able
to tell if you've made the progress that you
hope to make because we'll see it in the budget.
We'll see it in there. Yeah. I mean, minimally,
even if it's not, right? I mean, I think we'll
still try to get that corrected. Yeah. But, yeah,
I mean, that's that's the goal. And I think the
other conversation I know you've been working
a lot on tort reform this session with a number
of legislators. Obviously, Senator Dhingra seems
to be kind of out in front on that. This is a
part of that conversation as well. I don't think
any one piece of this is the single solution.
Right. But I think it's sort of kind of lack
of better co -occurring efforts. Right. To try
to to try to find a way to get at this. But it
is a it's a hard issue. And I don't know that
anything like I said, I don't think any one solution
is going to fix it. It's going to probably take
a variety of things, both at the state and local
level to make it work. Yeah. Well, Brad, budget
provisos are not subject to cut off. They are
the old. Yeah. Sure. some significant occurrence
at the cutoff within the last couple of days.
Well, sure. I guess we could, with that friendly
teaser. Yeah, so in particular, Travis Dutton
and myself have been working very closely on
House Bill 2389, which had to do with juvenile
rehabilitation, both in terms of kind of what's
happening at DCYF, but also the Department of
Children, Youth, and Families. Perfect. Nicely
done. Can't break the rules here. Here too far
known as DCYF on the podcast. Yeah. So, yeah,
working with our partners over there and some
of their concerns that have been raised over
the last couple sessions. But there was also
an effort in this bill to do a lot of big things
in terms of revising the current youth sentencing
grid, a lot of work around kind of. moving kids,
moving youth kind of out of the state system
and into the community system and kind of what
that looks like, what services are available
either in probation or outside of probation,
you know, electronic home monitoring. I mean,
there was a whole bunch of factors included in
this bill. And we had, I think, a number of concerns,
both on the policy side and the fiscal side.
And speaking of one of those being liability,
right, as we were just chatting about. Feels
like every other discussion. Exactly. It touches
everything at this point. But yeah, so this bill
is something we had worked really – we had been
disappointed that after this bill failed last
session because it's a second go around. that
there was no real stakeholdering process, no
real engagement in any meaningful way with either
us at the county level or with many of our partners
in this space. And that includes the prosecuting
attorneys, the superior court judges, our juvenile
court administrators, our sheriffs and police
chiefs. I mean, the list kind of goes on and
on. And so there really was a lot of folks saying,
hey, this is just not the way you try to make
a massive system change in a kind of, you know,
echo. chamber and not talk to the people who
are actually doing the work let's just dwell
on that point for a minute because i think it's
a really interesting one and we've seen a lot
of bills especially this year which is strange
given that it's a short session right i mean
there's always a few ambitious yeah there's a
few ambitious bills out there that are that are
introduced during a short session but oftentimes
it's because they're either statement bills or
they're just for next year just kind of starting
to just starting to wet the appetite so to speak
or maybe raise the temperature on an issue, whatever
analogy you want to use. But they're not really
there to actually get worked hard and pass because
there's such little time in a session, a 60 -day
session, the second half of the biennium. But
here we have a proposal that we've seen before.
That's right. Right? And we had a whole year
between last session and this session, well,
not a whole year, but, you know, 10 months. Plenty
of time. Nine months, whatever it may be, to
have some really meaningful discussions about
this, and there were none. None. And really not
even an hour. But then we have other issues,
Brad. I know. You know, where... They never want
to stop talking about it. Yeah. I mean, we've
been talking about it with stakeholders for years.
And we're slowly making progress on it, et cetera.
And it takes two, three, four years sometimes
to get those really big complex bills through.
But at least there's been a lot of work and the
bill changes over time. And usually people come
together on it. Here it feels like there hasn't
been any acknowledgement of that whatsoever.
Certainly not of our concerns, which we clearly
expressed. us last year that's right now this
version of the bill is better but it's a little
bit but still doesn't have our fingerprints on
not at all and and no like you said nothing and
and i think the part that was most striking to
me paul about the about all of it was it was
then made you know pretty quick into session
we kept being told this is a you know caucus
priority, right? This is a majority caucus priority.
Again, how does that happen? That really is where
I think we started to dig in. With no stakeholders.
Exactly. It's like, gosh, if you're going to
have, you know, if you're going to make this
one of your top three priorities, how do you
not talk to anybody? And it's not like, oh, they
just were blowing off the counties or something.
It was nobody. It was nobody in any meaningful
way. And can I be so bold? And this might sound
bold, but it's your job. To do this work. Yeah.
In the interim on these issues. It took us a
while to even figure out where the bill was,
who was working it. The idea. I mean, who was
writing it? Who was writing it? Right. The idea
that you can just introduce a complete system
change without having talked to the other stakeholders.
Okay, you do that once, mistake, mea culpa, blah,
blah, blah. You do it twice? Yeah. You don't
care what those stakeholders. I mean, that's
the message to me is either you're lazy. Yeah.
You don't care. Or you're not interested. Right.
You're not interested in what the other stakeholders
want. Yeah. Or you just don't want to do your
job for whatever reason. But, I mean, am I wrong?
I don't think so. No, I mean, I think that's
why we were so. It's your job. It's why we were
so frustrated. You know, I really do think that's
what led us to. And I think there were efforts
really at that last hour, and there's always
drama around the 5 o 'clock bill, and what's
the last bill that's going to get heard, and
right before cutoff, et cetera. There's always
drama. I'm pretty sure the Senate was melting
down on other issues. I'm pretty sure there's
a betting line on what's going to happen. If
there isn't, there should be. I mean, it's somewhere.
I mean, so yeah, I mean, there's always that
drama. But I think on this one. it was particular
i mean some of the last minute like hey will
you work you know could you agree to this could
you gotta cut a deal here and i think our position
really was if you'd have brought this to us Last
May, two months ago, last November, maybe the
start of maybe two weeks ago, frankly. I mean,
literally, that's at any point. If you just reached
out to us and said, hey, we've heard you testify
four times. We've seen the letters and fact sheets
that you've been sending up here. We know you've
been having these conversations with individual
legislators. And by the way, not just you, all
the partners sending letters and testifying.
Because it wasn't just us. It wasn't just us.
And so, you know. At some point that didn't dawn
on anybody to say, hey, we probably should pull
these folks into a room and have a conversation,
which I feel like, Paul, and I don't know if
you I feel like that used to be more common.
And honestly, you know, it's certainly what we
do. It's on our checklist. Let's take the tort,
the tort, the liability bill. Right. Listen,
that's a big bill. It did a lot of things. We
knew it was going to be kind of bumpy right out
of the gate. I give a lot of credit to Senator
Dengra for saying. all right i'm going to drop
this bill and you know what we're going to meet
on saturday a couple saturdays in a row for an
hour right and we're going to bring a lot of
people in the room we're just in between a lot
of other little conversations that were happening
sure you know among partners and groups yeah
some here in the wassack building and some sometimes
up we started talking about it four months ago
exactly so i mean that to me felt like a much
more traditional kind of even though it was sort
of a surprise bill in some ways in some ways
it's it still had and especially in terms of
what it what it was going to do, right, it still
had an element of a desire to do some stakeholder,
right, and to be forthright and just sort of
say, hey, let's work this out. And, you know,
yeah, it's going to be a work in progress and
we'll go there. The other one I would bring up
this session while we're ranting about this kind
of thing was this ITA bill that popped up this
century, the Involuntary Treatment Act bill.
It essentially was a complete rewrite of our
Involuntary Treatment Act, you know, system in
Washington state. We had been told in the interim
that there was going to be some work on a bill
and they wanted to do some nibbling around the
ITA and, you know, particularly law enforcement's
response and a couple of little things. And then
we see this bill that's 100 pages long get dropped,
you know, late in January. And we're kind of
going, great. You've got to be out of your mind.
What is this? You know, but. And then while we
tried to work to amend it, it managed to come
out of committee even longer. Like it got 20
more pages added onto it. And that was one that
did die under its own weight pretty quickly where
it was sort of like, okay, we weren't ready for
this in a short session. I think that may have
been a mix of a teaser bill and a statement bill
and a kind of shot across the ballot. Hey, we're
going to be working on this. We'll take a go
at it in a short session, see what kind of reaction
we get. Throw out some ideas, see which ones
stick, which ones attract a lot of controversy.
Where do we know we're going to have to put some
effort in? Yeah, then we got some buoys out there,
right, that we can work with and navigate around
as we, you know, do stakeholder. That's right.
Right. That's right. So, you know, again, part
of the problem. Yeah. So this was a this was
a frustrating one to see. I think we would like
to and I think we'll be trying to communicate
to the legislature in these last few weeks of
session that, you know, counties, counties see
the juvenile rehabilitation system and our sentencing
grid as a shared issue. and something that we
want to work together with them on, and we would
like to put the first hand out and say, hey,
let's talk during the interim. We are committed
to doing that. Let's have an open, stakeholder
process, and let's come back with something that
the entire system can support. instead of trying
to do this in a singular way. So you kind of
just gave a spoiler because we didn't really
talk about what happened with the bill. Oh, sorry.
Oh, the bill died. The bill died. Yeah, you're
right. We got carried away in our other pontificating.
We did. Spoiler alert, 2389 didn't make cutoff.
It didn't make cutoff. And it was dramatic. So
let's talk about some of that drama because I
think that's interesting to the listener. Sure.
You know, they don't really hear that part of
the legislative process. And it doesn't happen
every day. It doesn't. No. And it's always a
weird part of session, right? Because you never
are quite sure which bills are going to end up
being those last minute bills that kind of boil
over at the last second. Well, and at the end,
right, everything is focused on that clock. That's
right. At 5 p .m. You're watching what they're
sending out. The alarm goes off. And if they
haven't started talking about a bill. Everything
else is dead. Well, and that's one of the tricks,
right? That not everybody, everybody assumes
like they have to have voted on it by five o
'clock. No, they can just put it out on an order
of consideration. Right. Meaning they're going
to, they're going to have a debate on it. Right.
In theory. And at least read the bill or something.
And as long as they've read, yeah, like sort
of read it in. Yeah, read it into the record.
Then it's eligible. Right. You know, past that
five o 'clock deadline. And I want to say this
one came at like 4 .58. And there's always, there's
always a. Five o 'clock bill, right? There's
always a go home. They always choose one. Five
o 'clock bill, and it's never an easy one, right?
I mean, I've seen a few times where everyone
actually got along. Right, or they were feel
-good bills. Yeah, but most of the time, especially
this part of the session, it's like, you know,
you want to go home? You want to you want to
quit and move on to the next part of the session?
Well, you know, eat your vegetables. Right. Your
pound of flesh has to come out first. Yeah. And
it's usually the majority party's priority. That's
right. And this is one of those. It was one of
those. So what happened? So, you know, they it
became pretty clear, I think, as as the clock
was approaching that there weren't it wasn't
clear that they're kind of doing old fashioned
vote counting. Right. It wasn't clear that they
had the votes, that there were enough members
in the caucus. The Republicans had locked up
on it. Right. So there was no movement on that
side of the aisle. And so I think within the
D caucus, it just wasn't clear that they had
the votes to to they couldn't lose more than
10. Right. Well, I couldn't lose more than nine.
Yeah. Ten was the tripper. Ten was the tripper.
So, you know, they it was unclear. I don't know
how much vote counting they had done going into
that. That started to happen pretty rapidly.
You know, our experience, we came up to the Hill
like we always do and start working. And we started
getting approached by some of the folks in support
of that bill, which was novel because it was
the first time they had chosen to approach us.
Ironically. All session was literally two hours
before the deadline. And so, you know, I was
pretty clear with them that. I wasn't in a position
to negotiate at that point, right? Plus, the
amendment deadlines had passed. I mean, there
was nothing else that could have been done beyond
what we were seeing at that moment. We only had
one strategy left at that point. Right. And we
talk about this all the time. We represent a
membership organization. And if we were going
to change our position dramatically on a bill
of that magnitude, that wouldn't be Brad making
that decision on his own, right? Or Brad and
Paul. I mean, it would be, you know, unless we
were close on something, you know, then there's,
I think, the latitude to kind of do that on behalf
of the members. But we weren't close. Yeah. And,
you know, sometimes we go and we get instructions
from our members that say, okay, you know, what
are the sideboards? Exactly. Right. And if we
get close, can we go this extra mile? Or just
like, oh, we're other. Can we be neutral? Are
we kind of neutral but generally positive? You
know, what's the. But we didn't have that. No,
we were a solid. No. Yes. And our membership
across the board was very clear about that. And
it's because we hadn't really had any communication
with the supporters at all. Apart from the fact
we also had significant concerns. Right. But
yeah, compounded definitely by the fact that,
yeah, we had had no conversations. There had
been no movement. No one was taking our input.
No one was even asking for our input. Right.
And so we just felt completely unheard. Right.
And that was a frustrating place to be considering
how much of that. work happens at the county
level. So yeah, so as the clock ticked and the
five o 'clock hour passed, we waited. We heard
that at one point that they did have the votes
and that they were going to run it. It kind of
stayed quiet, though, for a little while. And
then it turned. We saw people scurrying in and
out of the doors and doing what they do. Which
is always a sign that something's going on. Always
a sign that maybe something's not as clean as
it looks. And sure enough, I think when the rubber
hit the road, it turned out they didn't. And
so it just didn't have quite enough oomph to
get there this session. And this happened last
year, too, on this bill. And so, yeah. I hope
everybody's sort of had enough of that, because
I certainly have, and that we can circle back
as a system, state, local governments. Figure
out a different way to do this next session and
hopefully do some stuff during the interim to
make that happen. Well, I mean, I'll say it again.
Do your job. Right. I mean, if you're the advocates
behind this bill, get the stakeholders together.
That's right. That's how you pass a bill. Yeah.
Excuse me. Figure out what the issues are, what
the concerns are. And if there are ways to address
those in an effective way that, you know, everyone
can get something that they need out of whatever
change you're trying to make. If you have a bill
and at the amendment deadline, there are 63 amendments
sitting on it. That's generally not the sign
of a well -worked bill. I would just proffer
that. For those of you that might be interested
in going into this field, if you are running
a bill and at the last minute 63 amendments get
dropped on it from both parties. Yeah. You might
have missed a step in there somewhere. If it's
from one side only. Right. That can be a tactic.
It just means they hate the bill. Sure. But that
was not the case, actually. So, anyways. Well,
that's a lot of drama at the end. It was. I'm
glad we were able to stop it for our members
and really try to be productive going forward.
I was holding my breath over here. Me too. Me
too. Couldn't have done it without you. I mean,
it was a team effort to get that done. And I
do want to acknowledge our partners at the Prosecutors
Association, our Superior Court Judges, our Juvenile
Court Administration. or sheriffs and police
chiefs. I mean, it really was a group effort
up there to try to express our concerns and slow
it down. Yeah, no, I think you're right. It was
a... There were a lot of folks who were all involved.
We were coordinating with ourselves. I guess
I'd say that. Working together. We worked together
really well. You led the charge, so you deserve
most of the credit for sure. That's kind, but
yeah. And you know, there's so many times when
you work a bill perfectly and you don't get the
outcome that you're looking for. No, and that
certainly happens. Probably more often than not.
More often than not, yeah. Yeah, this is one
of those rare cases where things actually worked
out, at least in our view, the right way. I think
the right way, but I also feel like the stakes
were really high. And had it not gone this way,
I think there would have been some significant
problems that would soon start to rear their
head because of an unworked piece of legislation
now becoming law. And that's concerning. And
that's really not how we should be doing stuff
up here. So not the last time we're going to
see this, I'm sure. No, I guarantee you it'll
come back next year. So hopefully we can be a
productive part of guiding that conversation
or at least engaging in it during the interim.
I'm tired of just talking. I know, just reliving
it over here. Sweating again. Well, at the end,
though, you must feel good about the outcome.
I know I certainly do. Really satisfied. Yeah,
I mean, and I think really affirmed both in terms
of the way our membership hung together on this,
as well as, you know, myself and Travis and you
and others that really. The advocates were pulling
out all the stops. Oh, I mean, just everything.
They were going behind our back. Oh, man, sending
up information that just wasn't correct. Yeah,
selling, sending. Saying that they had talked
to us about it and had worked it out with us
and that wasn't true. There was all kinds of
misinformation going on. This is just rumor,
but there was a lot of political kind of maneuvering
going on behind the background. That is what
we've heard as well. So, yeah. So, you know,
listen, this is a serious issue and I think you
should. on a serious issue like that that affects
people's lives, you need to be doing stakeholdering
that is reflective of that gravity. Couldn't
agree more. Yeah. Well, Brad, I'm sure there's
more issues. Oh, there's always plenty. We've
run out of time. No, it's all right. Happy cutoff
to you. Happy cutoff. Thanks for the work and
support. Yeah, everything's going to move fast
from here on out. We are on the home stretch.
Yeah. Like 20 days, 21 days, something like that.
Something like that. But there's really only,
I think, about maybe two and a half, three weeks
to go. Floor cutoff, so between now and Friday
the 5th or 6th, I think it's the 6th of March,
is when the next floor cutoff is. And after that,
all it is is budgets and concurrence after that.
February is a short month. Yeah, you only got
the 28 days, right? So we get a few extra days
there. So things are going to be hot and heavy
here in Olympia. Yeah, it's going to fly. It's
going to fly, and we're going to have to be on
our toes, that's for sure. We'll see where we
go. Well, thanks, Brad. No, my pleasure, Paul.
Yeah, and thanks to our listeners for everything
that you do for your counties every single day.
Hopefully you can join us for our next chat.
And until then, take good care. Thanks for tuning
in to County Connection. Stay in the loop by
subscribing to us through your preferred podcasting
app and following us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and
Instagram. And don't forget to join The Hub,
your go -to source for the latest news and updates
from the Washington State Association of Counties.
Until next time, stay connected and stay informed.