Statehouse

The Statehouse in Olympia

The Washington state Legislature re-convened this week as a full government body, starting off the 2020 legislative session. The Reflector sent out a list of questions to local lawmakers to get an idea of what their goals are and how they plan to address locally-pertinent issues.

 

17th Legislative District

Sen. Lynda Wilson, R-Vancouver

Wilson.jpg

Sen. Lynda Wilson, R-17

Committees: Financial Institutions, Economic Development and Trade, (on which she’s the Republican leader), Law and Justice, Ways and Means (operating and capital budgets) 

What are your top priorities this session? Are you planning on sponsoring any specific bills?

Some of my priorities are new things I’ve worked on in the “interim” period since the 2019 session, and some are proposals I’ve been advocating over the past couple of years — because it can take time to build support within the Legislature.

SB 5149 would change state law to allow the use of electronic monitoring with victim notification technology. It’s a way for domestic violence victims with a protection order to be alerted in real time when their abuser gets closer than allowed. We will never know for sure if the tragic story of Tiffany Hill, the young Clark County mother whose estranged husband killed her recently, could have turned 

out differently if this technology had been available to give her time to escape the area where she was found and shot. I’m renaming the bill after her and am glad to report that it will receive a public hearing before our Senate Law and Justice Committee on Jan. 16.

SB 6042 would do away with what are called “title-only” bills. These bills have just a title and no detailed text, which means the public (nor the legislators) know what the bills would do. Several were used late in this past session to get around the state constitution, with one enabling the biggest of the 12 new exorbitant tax increases approved in 2019. It is not a transparent approach to government and legislators needs to quit using them.

SB 6044, the Three Branches Act, would make some simple but important changes to the way state regulations are authorized, adopted and reviewed. There are thousands of rules and regulations that affect every aspect of our lives. Many times people don’t have any idea which of the three branches of state government is responsible for making and interpreting the policies that govern them. This bill will improve transparency, increase accountability and make our government better.

Following the passing of Initiative 976, which makes changes to transportation funding, do you have any plans to address the initiative, the court case regarding its legality or transportation funding as a whole?

It was clear what the electorate wanted considering I-976 passed in 33 of 39 counties, with almost 62 percent saying “yes” in the 17th District. I believe this gives us an opportunity to look at how we fund the state’s transportation needs. I have co-sponsored a bill that will take the sales tax from vehicle sales, which now goes into the general fund, and redirect it to the transportation fund to be used for construction projects and congestion relief.

With Oregon now at the table with Washington regarding replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge, what’s your take on the momentum regarding fixing transportation issues over the Columbia River?

I believe the bi-state meetings are going well. There are open minds and no specific lines drawn in the sand this time (unlike last time). There is good representation at the table from both states. I think we are getting great public input, which is important and good, thoughtful questions are being asked. It is good to have the past information from the previous project for historical purposes, but we also know that those questions and answers were from quite some time ago; we need to make sure the proper questions to address the proper issues are asked now. I don’t think there is one person at the table who doesn’t believe that we also need to be talking about more crossings, which is one of our goals. 

Would you support efforts to roll back gun sales and ownership changes brought on by I-1639?

Our gun laws should respect the rights of law-abiding people, and I’ve always thought the I-1639 law falls far short of that. However, changes to laws created by initiatives cannot be made as simply as changes to a law made in the Legislature. Without a two-thirds majority vote, an initiative-created law cannot be amended for two years after it’s passed by the voters. 

I-1639 passed in 2018. Given the political makeup of the Legislature, and the fact that those who want the proper fixes are in the minority party, any change that could win a two-thirds vote is not likely to address what I see as the shortcomings in the law.

Also, the NRA lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of I-1639 is still winding its way through the judicial system.

It would be nice to have a conversation (in the 2020 session) about constructive changes to the I-1639 law, but I think it’s reasonable to expect that the legal challenge will move faster than the Legislature on this one.

Locally, sexual health education has been a flashpoint for controversy, with Battle Ground Public Schools nixing mandatory high school sex ed outside lessons regarding HIV required by law. With the potential for changes to sex ed coming from the Legislature the question comes up: should districts have to teach mandatory sex ed?

It’s not simply a question of whether the teaching is mandatory, but also what the teaching covers. A sex-ed bill passed by the Senate majority (but not the House) in 2019 would open the door to a required curriculum that would start in kindergarten, with topics that parents in our legislative district don’t believe are proper for such young children. Parents have the right to both have a say on their child’s education as well as being fully informed on the curriculum being used and should have unrestricted access to that information. The Senate bill doesn’t meet that standard.

 

Rep. Vicki Kraft, R-Vancouver

Vicki Kraft 4C.jpg

Rep. Vicki Kraft, R-17

Committees: Local Government (ranking member), Appropriations, College and Workforce Development. 

What are your top priorities this session? Are you planning on sponsoring any specific bills?

Business regulatory reform, sex trafficking prevention and parents’ rights. Especially in these short sessions, I typically prioritize bills driven by constituent feedback and/or priorities I’ve told my district I would focus on.

2020 bills

HB 2330, the Business Regulatory Reform Bill, would seek to move agencies away from a punitive, penalty-minded mode to a good-faith and fairness mode of operation when dealing with business owners. I’ve talked with small business owners and constituents who say the burden of regulations and trying to keep up with all of them is extremely difficult and consumes a tremendous amount of resources.

HB 2331, regarding the Open Public Meetings Act, would require posting of agendas 72 hours in advance versus 24 hours, promoting government transparency and accountability.

HB 2332 would allow certain medical practitioners to administer long-term antibiotic therapy to Lyme Disease patients if needed. Currently this is not allowed in Washington so it’s much more difficult for those with this disease to get the treatment they really need to get better. This came from a local citizen with the disease and Lyme patients and professionals stakeholder meeting I hosted in the district this interim.

HB 2333 requires the attorney general to include in advisory vote descriptions in the voter pamphlet any tax exemptions/preferences in addition to taxes included in a bill and must also include the bill title, along with substantive changes made to the bill from time of introduction to being signed into law. Currently, since only taxes are included, it can be misleading to constituents as they might think a bill raises taxes but overall, in effect, if there is a graduated tax exemption over time then the overall net effect of the bill may actually be a reduction in taxes. This was the case with the timber industry bill which was one of the November 2019 advisory vote items — many constituents thought the bill only raised taxes (not reduced them). This bill would help constituents have an accurate and complete description of what the bill does. It promotes government transparency and accountability.

2019 bills returning 

HB 1836, a sex trafficking prevention bill.

HB 1082, a bill regarding massage therapists intended to fight sex trafficking. Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle requested this bill.

HB 1736 deals with adaptive agriculture equipment to help disabled veterans work in the farming industry.

HB 1738 would update the tax return filing thresholds to reflect inflation. This bill will reduce the number of filings small businesses have to file annually. It’s another business regulatory reform bill.

HB 1835 provides $300,000 for a consultative study to determine the best current, viable pathways for a third bridge/connector west of I-5.

Following the passing of Initiative 976 which makes changes to transportation funding, do you have any plans to address the initiative, the court case regarding its legality or transportation funding as a whole?

There has been and will continue to be much conversation in Olympia about this issue. The voice of the voters needs to be respected and my hope is the court will rule accordingly

With Oregon now at the table with Washington regarding replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge, what’s your take on the momentum regarding fixing transportation issues over the Columbia River?

In order to truly reduce traffic congestion on the I-5 corridor, the next project to take place needs to be a third bridge west of or near I-5 to help commuters and freight get to their destinations much more quickly

Would you support efforts to roll back gun sales and ownership changes brought on by I-1639?

I am a strong Second Amendment supporter. I-1639 is an infringement of citizens’ constitutional rights. I will support legislation that duly protects citizens’ constitutional freedoms and rights

Locally, sexual health education has been a flashpoint for controversy, with Battle Ground Public Schools nixing mandatory high school sex ed outside lessons regarding HIV required by law. With the potential for changes to sex ed coming from the Legislature the question comes up: should districts have to teach mandatory sex ed?

No. And the state government should not mandate school districts to teach this. I’ve heard from thousands of concerned parents on this issue that do not want to see a bill pass.

 

18th Legislative District

Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center

Ann Rivers.jpg

Sen. Ann Rivers

Committees: Ways and Means (budget), Health and Long-Term Care, Environment, Energy and Technology, Rule 

What are your top priorities this session? Are you planning on sponsoring any specific bills?

One of the things my constituents want most is for the entire Legislature to listen when it comes to taxes. That didn’t happen in 2019, when the majority lifted the bipartisan “lid” we’d put on local school property taxes just two years earlier and passed a slew of other tax increases. Taxes have their purpose — access to fire protection and road construction are good examples — but the increases approved this past year weren’t justifiable considering state government already had plenty of revenue, and two of those taxes raised issues we should address this year. As for specific bills, I’ll be at the table on a pretty wide range of issues, such as producing more salmon for all (recreational anglers, commercial fishers and orca); protecting the privacy of consumer data; regulating gambling on sports, if that becomes legal; reducing gun crime; and protecting police animals. I’ll be prime sponsor on some of those bills and a co-sponsor on others.

Following the passing of Initiative 976 which makes changes to transportation funding, do you have any plans to address the initiative, the court case regarding its legality or transportation funding as a whole?

I heard loud and clear at our town halls that people want $30 car tabs. If the I-976 law withstands the legal challenge, members of the Senate and House transportation committees will have decisions to make — and if it’s overturned, we still should move toward $30 tabs. Republicans have ideas for getting there that do not involve new taxes.

With Oregon now at the table with Washington regarding replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge, what’s your take on the momentum regarding fixing transportation issues over the Columbia River?

The Columbia River Crossing project failed largely because our state’s Legislature was brought into the loop far too late, as though we were expected to simply write the check without asking questions. This time the Legislature is in on the ground floor, in the form of our bi-state bridge committee, and each time the committee meets it moves things a little more in the proper direction. My top concerns as we go forward are congestion relief and seismic safety, and I am glad the governor is officially non-committal about any high-capacity transit component of a new bridge — that’s the right attitude. I will be pursuing an action to create more transparency by putting 100 percent of expenses related to the project online, for anyone who wishes to see how much money has been spent and where it’s spent. 

Would you support efforts to roll back gun sales and ownership changes brought on by I-1639?

Just as I-976’s passage was the voters reacting to the escalating cost of car tabs, the passage of I-1639 was the voters’ reaction to the escalation of senseless violence involving firearms. I can certainly understand why law-abiding firearm owners feel the law is unfair, or unconstitutional, because the target should be those who use firearms unlawfully. Let’s see what happens with the legal challenge to the I-1639 law; in the meantime I am looking to introduce legislation that would dramatically increase the penalties for gun crimes. 

Locally, sexual health education has been a flashpoint for controversy, with Battle Ground Public Schools nixing mandatory high school sex ed outside lessons regarding HIV required by law. With the potential for changes to sex ed coming from the Legislature the question comes up: should districts have to teach mandatory sex ed?

This was already an issue in the Senate during the 2019 session, in the form of SB 5395, which would impose a statewide curriculum on comprehensive sexual health education. That bill failed to actually define “comprehensive,” and would mandate sex ed from kindergarten up while shutting parents out of things like reviewing the curriculum in advance or attending with their child when the teaching happens. Does it make sense to require a statewide curriculum for sex ed and not require the same for mathematics or language arts or science?

Rep. Brandon Vick, R-Felida

Brandon Vick 4c.jpg

Rep. Brandon Vick, R-18

Committees: Consumer Protections and Business, (ranking member), Commerce and Gaming, Finance

What are your top priorities this session? Are you planning on sponsoring any specific bills?

I will continue to prioritize the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. The state has taken in a substantial surplus of tax dollars, and we need to make sure that we are not going back to the taxpayers to ask for more. I will continue to pay close attention to Initiative 976, and advocate for the will of the voters in the 18th Legislative District. I will also work to make sure that the infrastructure projects that are on track for Southwest Washington do not fall victim to political games.

A top concern of mine has always been the opportunity to work, live and thrive in Clark County. I will continue to advocate for policies that help us develop economically. Tied closely to the availability of job opportunities, is that actual ability to be able to go to work. The state of Washington has made occupational licensing an unnecessarily burdensome task for many of our citizens. I have drafted a series of bills that will make it easier for our skilled employees to get to work and begin earning for themselves and their families. Some examples include a system by which new residents of the state of Washington can easily earn a license that they had in a previous state or country by completing a competency based evaluation. If a person has the skills needed for work, there is no reason to have them repeat hundreds of hours of training and spend the associated fees that go along with those hours. If the previous state had a similar set of requirements, than those licenses would be expedited without the test.  Removing hurdles for individuals trying to earn gainful employment seems like a no-brainer. In this realm, I am also tackling the scope and necessity of some of our licenses. The Legislature has an interest in protecting public safety and health. Many licenses include unnecessary hurdles that do not serve the public interest, but rather the interest of those trying to minimize competition. It is time to change that. I am happy that these efforts seem to be bi-partisan, and look forward to a successful session.

I will also be working on legislation that will provide for more government accountability when dealing with the initiative process. My goal is not to change the initiative process itself, but provide the public with additional safeguards from the Legislature. If the voters vote for or against a certain proposal, I want to make sure that their desires are followed through on so long as they are constitutional. This would be in effect for at least two legislative sessions. Longer would be ideal, but we are not allowed to bind the decision of future legislatures.

Following the passing of Initiative 976 which makes changes to transportation funding, do you have any plans to address the initiative, the court case regarding its legality or transportation funding as a whole?

I think that the will of the people must be enforced. It is really that simple. There is no reason to wait for the court’s decision as the voters have clearly spoken. The topic of $30 car tabs is not in legal limbo as the Legislature can set those rates at will. I favor the passage of legislation that mirrors the initiative. We have done this before as a Legislature, and must have the fortitude to do it again.

With Oregon now at the table with Washington regarding replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge, what’s your take on the momentum regarding fixing transportation issues over the Columbia River?

To date, I do believe that the momentum is positive. Legislators, citizens and professionals are at the table, and meaningful conversations are beginning to take place. To date, we have largely explored the demise of the previous effort in an attempt to understand both the logistical and political implications of that effort. The next step will likely be to set forth a clear set of goals and criteria for a new crossing. Some examples of this might be congestion relief, reduced commute times, reduced pollution, financial constraints, etc. Once those criteria are in place, we can then begin to evaluate potential crossings and ideas as they come forward. Additional crossings are absolutely on the table. In fact, nothing is off the table at the moment. Washington’s legislation even calls for a bridge authority to plan for additional and/or future crossings over the river. The bi-state committee has made it a priority to hear from the public at each and every meeting that we have, and new ideas are coming forward all the time. While the committee is still relatively young, the efforts and collaboration has been generally positive.

Would you support efforts to roll back gun sales and ownership changes brought on by I-1639?

It is obvious to me that I-1639 had some major problems. Put simply, I believe that there are portions of that law that are simply unconstitutional, or are in direct conflict with federal law. It is my understanding that I-1639 is currently in federal court, and that we hope to have a clear answer to these questions soon. As mentioned earlier, I believe that it is important to uphold the will of the voters. I think that it is also important to follow our oath, and uphold both the state and U.S. constitutions. Finding that balance is the job of the legislator. While I am not intimately familiar with HB 2103 (a bill intended to counter I-1639’s changes) at this point, I do believe that we need to address the constitutional concerns in short order. HB 2103 did not receive a hearing in the 2019 session. If bills like this are important to the citizens, I would encourage them to reach out to members of both political parties and make their opinion known. 

Locally, sexual health education has been a flashpoint for controversy, with Battle Ground Public Schools nixing mandatory high school sex ed outside lessons regarding HIV required by law. With the potential for changes to sex ed coming from the Legislature the question comes up: should districts have to teach mandatory sex ed?

It is my opinion that the Legislature as a whole has reduced the power and flexibility of our local school boards. Decisions surrounding curriculum are one of the major responsibilities that they have left. There are some who believe that the system is broken because districts like Battle Ground did not adopt a particular sex ed curriculum. I believe that the contrary is true. Citizens showed up to their local school board in an effort to voice their displeasure and dissatisfaction with the curriculum that was being considered. As a result, the school board did not force it upon them. The beauty of the system is that the opposite could be true tomorrow. I would not vote to require local school districts to adopt a specific sex ed curriculum, or to mandate that they choose from one of a select few options. What is right for Battle Ground residents may or may not be what is right for Camas residents. It is likely very different than what is right for Seattle residents, or Spokane. Let’s let the government that is closest and most responsive to the people decide.  

Rep. Larry Hoff, R-Vancouver

-Hoff_Larry-2019.jpg

Rep. Larry Hoff, R-18

Committees: Appropriations, Labor and Workplace Standards, Consumer Protection and Business

In addition to serving on these committees, I also represent our caucus by serving on the State Building Code Council, the Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee, the Financial Education Public-Private Partnership and the Future of Work Task Force Committee.

What are your top priorities this session? Are you planning on sponsoring any specific bills?

I will continue looking for ways to control the growth of our state government, while fighting to maintain the constitutionally ordained rights that all citizens enjoy. Washingtonians have been the unfortunate targets of unneeded and unwarranted tax hikes recently, with small business owners being hit especially hard. Along with many of my colleagues, I plan on supporting efforts to minimize the negative impacts of this trend. In addition, I will be introducing legislation that addresses a financial burden assessed to small forest landowners 

Following the passing of Initiative 976 which makes changes to transportation funding, do you have any plans to address the initiative, the court case regarding its legality or transportation funding as a whole?

Roughly 61 percent of voters in Clark County voted in favor of I-976. As legislators, we would be derelict in our duty if we simply ignored that vote and worked to disregard the will of the people. It is imperative that Gov. Jay Inslee work with the Legislature to find a way to continue funding all warranted transportation projects.

With Oregon now at the table with Washington regarding replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge, what’s your take on the momentum regarding fixing transportation issues over the Columbia River?

I’m encouraged to see the progress being made between Oregon and Washington, which will eventually lead to the replacement of the I-5 bridge. However, like thousands of my fellow Clark County residents, I’m concerned the replacement bridge won’t alone solve our I-5 congestion nightmare. The bi-state legislative committee charged with coordinating efforts will need to start the planning process for additional Columbia River crossings, or we will never get ahead of our congestion issues.

Would you support efforts to roll back gun sales and ownership changes brought on by I-1639?

I believe I-1639 includes basic drafting flaws that should have rendered it unconstitutional. I also believe the components of I-1639 are unwarranted at best. However, I also recognize the majority of Washington state and Clark County voted in favor of its passage, so we must comply with its directives. Through legislative efforts or via the initiative process, I will support efforts to eliminate the negative impacts I-1639 has had on law-abiding citizens.

Locally, sexual health education has been a flashpoint for controversy, with Battle Ground Public Schools nixing mandatory high school sex ed outside lessons regarding HIV required by law. With the potential for changes to sex ed coming from the Legislature the question comes up: should districts have to teach mandatory sex ed?

I am fundamentally opposed to any efforts to erode the ability of parents to choose the proper educational paths for their children.

20th Legislative District

Rep. John Braun, R-Centralia

John Braun.jpg

Sen. John Braun, R-20

Committees: Ways and Means (budget – Republican leader), Labor and Commerce, Financial Institutions, Economic Development and Trade

What are your top priorities this session? Are you planning on sponsoring any specific bills?

This past year the majority party approved many billions of dollars’ worth of tax increases and increased state spending by $9 billion (18 percent) yet so many needs were ignored or shortchanged by the 2019-21 operating budget. An enormous amount of tax money went toward pay increases without any input from the Legislature, meaning there was no opportunity to weigh that expense against very pressing situations in our communities. While the “short” sessions of even-numbered years are typically focused on mid-course corrections to the two-year budget, this imbalance should have us looking to reprioritize and address issues that concern my constituents, such as more support for community mental-health services and our developmentally disabled citizens, and increasing reimbursements to prevent more closures of nursing homes. 

Many of my priorities and the bills I’m sponsoring reflect what I and other Republicans are hearing from the people we serve: property-tax relief for seniors, honoring the voters’ desire for $30 car tabs, pushing for tougher DUI laws, a new approach to state hatcheries that will increase salmon stocks, and ways to put new controls on state spending ahead of the next budget cycle. I’ll also be working to keep a costly “Medicare for all” approach from taking deeper root in our state and showing why the governor’s latest energy proposal (on fuel standards) amounts to a higher gas tax with none of the benefits to our roads.   

Following the passing of Initiative 976 which makes changes to transportation funding, do you have any plans to address the initiative, the court case regarding its legality or transportation funding as a whole?

I’ll take this opportunity to highlight SB 6041, my new bill to dedicate the state sales tax on motor vehicles to transportation improvements. The passage of I-976 confirmed that the Legislature would be wise to start cultivating an additional source of transportation revenue, and the sales tax on vehicles is a logical candidate. My proposal would annually move a portion of the existing vehicle sales-tax revenue into a new fund, 10 percent at a time, starting in 2020. It would provide an estimated $30 billion-plus for transportation investments over the next 20 years, which is approximately double the value of the “Connecting Washington” package of projects and revenue approved in 2015, all without any new taxes. The governor attacks this idea by claiming it would take money from education, but that’s false — between long-term economic projections and substantial savings coming next decade from paying off the state’s long-term pension liability, there will be more than enough revenue to keep up with the phasing-in of this legislation and allow an orderly transition that protects the operating budget (including money for K-12).

With Oregon now at the table with Washington regarding replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge, what’s your take on the momentum regarding fixing transportation issues over the Columbia River?

For many of the communities I serve, Portland is the “big city” more than Seattle, and my first session as a legislator was the one that saw the Columbia River Crossing project collapse, so the bridge situation has always been on my radar. I think the bi-state committee process has more promise than the approach that was tried before, and Senators Rivers and Wilson are doing an outstanding job of representing Clark County and Southwest Washington on that group. 

Would you support efforts to roll back gun sales and ownership changes brought on by I-1639?

No legislative district opposed I-1639 more strongly than the 20th District, where the “no” vote exceeded 68 percent. Many of the people I serve have a love for hunting and/or target shooting, an interest in self-defense and an appreciation for the Second Amendment, so if the majority side was to allow a full vote on a bill that would be less restrictive, that is absolutely something I would support. 

Locally, sexual health education has been a flashpoint for controversy, with Battle Ground Public Schools nixing mandatory high school sex ed outside lessons regarding HIV required by law. With the potential for changes to sex ed coming from the Legislature the question comes up: should districts have to teach mandatory sex ed?

The legislation regarding sexual health education that has been considered up until now has removed all authority from parents and the local school board. We trust local school boards to make decisions about policies and procedures and negotiate contracts at a district level. We should also trust them to make decisions about instruction at a district level, no matter the subject. 

Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama

Orcutt.jpg

Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-20

Committees: Finance (ranking member), Transportation, Rural Development, Agriculture, Natural Resources

What are your top priorities this session? Are you planning on sponsoring any specific bills?

My priorities are to protect against any further tax increases and infringement on citizens’ rights; and to address various issues brought forth by constituents. Typically, focus on legislation is in regard to the committees upon which I serve but include a wide variety of topics brought by constituents. I try to prioritize the bills that get the most benefit for my constituents.

Following the passing of Initiative 976 which makes changes to transportation funding, do you have any plans to address the initiative, the court case regarding its legality or transportation funding as a whole?

Voters have voted for $30 car tabs numerous times, yet the Legislature has continued to add new fees. I have spoken out against the addition of the weight fees in the 2005 and 2015 transportation tax packages. I will work to implement I-976 while protecting Southwest Washington transportation projects — and the taxpayers who fund them with gas tax dollars.

With Oregon now at the table with Washington regarding replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge, what’s your take on the momentum regarding fixing transportation issues over the Columbia River?

I am encouraged that Washington and Oregon legislators are meeting to develop a replacement project. Whatever is developed needs to address the concerns and meet the needs of citizens, commuters, and commerce as well as to be fair to the taxpayers (including commuters) of our state. But just replacing the current I-5 crossing will not solve congestion issues — we need to build additional crossings and the process for replacing the I-5 bridge needs to include construction of at least one more crossing. Our citizens shouldn’t be made to wait until  I-5 is fixed before developing plans and starting construction of a new crossing.

Would you support efforts to roll back gun sales and ownership changes brought on by I-1639?

With the talk in Olympia (from the Governor and Attorney General) of additional restrictions on firearms, it is unlikely that HB 2103 would even get a hearing, much less come up for a vote. So, the question is whether or not legislators would support added restrictions. I would not.

Locally, sexual health education has been a flashpoint for controversy, with Battle Ground Public Schools nixing mandatory high school sex ed outside lessons regarding HIV required by law. With the potential for changes to sex ed coming from the Legislature the question comes up: should districts have to teach mandatory sex ed?

No. Locally elected School directors best understand the communities they serve and need to have flexibility in what is taught and at what age rather than it being mandated by the State.

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.