Zander Writing Sample1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Zander Writing Sample1






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Zander Writing Sample1 Document Transcript

  • 1. MEMORANDUM TO: DR. DALE E. THOMSON, PH.D SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE FROM: ANTHONY ZANDER DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 7100 DATE: 7/20/2010 CC: MS. BARKER DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNAL SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE RECONSIDERAT ION OF SENATE BILL NO. 7100: STATE GOVERNMENT REORGANIZAT ION Background Senators Kirt Smith and Barbara Jackson have drafted a reorganization bill that would take the Office of Special Investigations (OISI) out of the Department of Social Justice (DSJ) and align it under the direction of the Washington State Police Department (WSPD). Success of this move would sacrifice over 15 years of steady progressive achievements, eliminate $8.7 million from the annual biennial budge and displace 77 specialized trained full time employees (FTEs). Alternatives In response to Senate Bill No. 7100 (SB 7100) I have drafted two possible alternatives to minimize the impact of the proposed legislation. 1) Proposal of a new bill: Contrast to SB 7100 I am suggesting that DSJ introduce a new bill to the Legislature - a copy of the bill has been attached for viewing. In summary, Senate Bill No. 7200 (SB 7200) suggests a reorganization to allow the transfer of resources of WSPDs special investigation unit to the authority of DSJs OISI Division. Below is an excerpt from SB 7200: New Section 3 In order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of state resources, the Division of Office of Internal Special Investigations within the
  • 2. Department of Social Justice shall, where feasible, use existing facilities and systems through the transfer of funds from the office internal special investigations of the Washington State Police Department I am suggesting we take this aggressive measure as soon as possible. The bill should be introduced as an alternative to SB 7100 during Committee Action. SB 7100 is currently being scheduled for a public hearing, but the chair may possibly forego it and fast-forward to Committee Action. Your approval of this alternative bill is highly urgent. If the deadline of Committee Action is approaching too quickly, I suggest we present SB 7200 to the full body; with the understanding that the chair may not place it atop the agenda. We should take whatever course of action is deemed best for the department, but also considering the urgency to expedite the process. 2) Analysis of Programs Effectiveness: The sponsors of SB 7100 argue that “the WSPD as having the expertise, trained staff, and longer experience in dealing with the kinds of problems the OISI is supposed to solve. WSPD has a similar unit with 15 years’ experience in infiltrating criminal activities in police departments”. The sponsors also go on to argue about the staff training and technology available. I am suggesting that we ask a specialized auditor to perform a comprehensive analysis to test the effectiveness of each programs equivalent areas. If the information is only in favor of WSPD slightly, this information can be presented as an argument against SB 7100; as the results are not worth the costs associated with the reorganization. If the results are in favor of OISI we not only use it as an argument to block SB 7100, but to absorb WSPDs special investigation unit via SB 7200. 3) Leave as is: The department simply suggests, with solid support, to leave each department as is. If we can show that the resources needed to dedicate to an organizational change does not produce a net gain in cost savings, efficiency, and/or effectiveness it will surely weigh heavily against SB 7100. Meeting Goals The sponsors of the SB 7100 outline a number of concerns with the OISI. I have put together a number of responses that will ease the anxiety of the majority of the legislators. The goals detailed below can, and will, be integrated into either alternative that is chosen. Costs: One concern has been costs of the program under OISI. The sponsors of the bill argue, “…savings, efficiency and greater productivity will be gained by eliminating duplicate clerical, auditing, computer operations, administrative, supervisory and other middle-management functions” (Case--Legislative Strategy-State Govt Reorganization). The Chief of Staff at the Office of Financial Management has said, “The savings are not going to be as high as initially postulated… Complicating matters is the unknown impact of an expected drop in federal assistance for all state programs in general and some
  • 3. criminal justice programs in particular.” Because of this with the comprehensive analysis alternative, we suggest leaving the organization structure as is. Oversight One of the sponsors concerns was the lack of oversight by the legislature “They [OISI] have too much flexibility and not enough direction from the Legislature. We’re supposed to be the policy-makers, but we don’t know what’s going on.” In response to his concern I have proposed that the Sec of DSJ appoint legislators (or his/her staff) to serve on the board and/or advisory committee. These appointees will more than likely be one representative from each political party. Community Drug Problem One of the concerns of the senator was the continuing drug problem within his urban Seattle district. I am suggesting that we ask for additional resources to expand our successful rehabilitation and peer monitoring program outside the walls of the states correctional system. This would normally be considered outside the scope of OISI and fall under Department of Health and Human Services, but if the senator believes that the obtaining of OISI will allow WSPD to curb the drug abuse, then lets suggest our already existing program be the pilot for his project. Challenges There will be a few challenges in defeating this bill; even if we decided to implement either of the alternatives. 1) Relationships – There is an obvious relationship between the governor and the director of WSPD. There needs to be a fine, tactical approach to ensuring the governor’s position regarding SB 7100 is in our favor. Also, there seems to be an opportunity to gain support in the other house. I will discuss this in more detail at a later time. 2) Committee Members – Other than the 2 sponsors of the bill, the Senate Corrections Committee members are either first-term legislators or are new to this committee and therefore are not knowledgeable about the OISI or this particular program. It will take a strenuous effort to educate and recruit the other committee members to side against their [SB 7100 sponsoring] co-committee members. This will prove to be even more difficult because the 2 sponsors are of opposite political parties and will have bipartisan support. 3) SB 7200 – One of the alternatives suggested is the reorganization for OISI to consume the special investigation unit from WSPD. Their position has been the reorganization bill as “having logic as a management tool, believes it could improve accountability, service delivery, and save money”. There have been arguments that have disputed their claims. These disputes can be used against our own reorganization bill. Gaining Support
  • 4. Key to stopping SB 7100 will be gaining the support of Governor Welty. As we know, the governor appointed the director of WSPD after the individual served as the campaign head of a city wide drug abuse special investigation. Well this drug abuse program was started by Welty when he was Mayor of Spokane. There is an obvious connection, and one of the senator’s talking points when he proposed the legislation was the drug abuse problem in his district. We need to take make sure we acknowledge the governor on taking the initial stance against drug usage. We will use this to align his efforts and results in Spokane to our efforts and results under OISI. It may also be advantageous to mention the budgetary laws. We know the governor has not spoken in favor or against SB 7100, so if we can show the budgetary effort it would take to implement such a task, he will stay at minimal neutral on the matter. Best outcome would be for him to say such a move should wait until next budge-adoption year. Also, we need to collect all the support we can; OFM and other department heads, outside agencies, interest groups, and other legislators. Currently there are legislators jockeying their candidate for board/advisory committee positions. For more than just ethical reasons I would not suggest trading a seat for favorable support. I would suggest that you acknowledge the type of the members you seek to fill such positions. It’s no secret the department is looking for individuals who have experience in health delivery related fields, rehabilitation, mental/emotional counseling, and community involvement. I believe common knowledge of this will serve in the department’s best interest. Thank you, Anthony Zander Director, Office of Legislative Affairs att. SB 7200