This letter was sent to me for publication by islander George Beavis.
I know there are a number of issues before the city that appear more important; but please read on. There are some attributes of this and other problems before the city seem to be a common thread.
Recap.
COBI told the American Legion that they would be happy to extend veteran’s preferences in employment except that state law prevents them from doing so. I researched this and it seemed to me that it was not true. I spoke to Elray of “I can’t balance my checkbook fame” and was told the same thing [note: the writer is referring to City Finance Director Elray Konkel]. I challenged him to point to the RCW that supported his claim. He said that he would send me the references on Friday, several Fridays ago. I asked who had made the decision about the and Elray said that he had and that despite the fact that he is not a lawyer he assured me that having passed the CPA exam he was sure he was smart enough to interpret the law. When challenged on this he said the city had obtained a legal opinion from an attorney and would send a copy of this to me on Friday – several Fridays ago.
I have written 6 emails to the mayor, administrator and council persons without a response from any of them. In these emails I provided links to RCW references and city laws in other cities that contradict what COBI has said.
Why does this matter?
Situation:
Percent of population involved in Iraq/Afghanistan wars. According to an article on GlobalSecurity.org, ”Another reason Rieckhoff calls the Iraq war “invisible” is that while 12 percent of the U.S. population served in World War II, less than 1 percent have suited up for Iraq.”
Length and frequency of tours. Army Times writes, “Many soldiers have deployed three, four and more times to Iraq, Afghanistan or both. But you won’t hear much in the way of complaints, because a shared sense of honor and duty overrides most self-interest. Yet there is no escaping the fact that the Army is nearing a breaking point. In the fifth year of war in Iraq, when deployments should be winding down, combat tours instead are being extended. Time between deployments, meanwhile, is unchanged. So today, soldiers can look forward to 15 months in the war zone for every 12 months at home. Fifteen-month deployments mean some soldiers can expect to miss two Christmases, two anniversaries, and two of the same child’s birthdays in one war tour.”
Unemployment rate amongst veterans. Young Gulf War-era veterans (18 to 24 years old) had a higher unemployment rate (18.7 percent) than young nonveterans (9.9 percent). For information on unemployment figures, see data by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, or the Rand Corporation.
Suicide rate amongst veterans. According to CBS News, among veterans there are 12,000 attempted suicides and 6,570 suicides per year.
Long term cost projections. The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert. The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict. (2007) (emphasis added.) A more recent estimate puts the cost at $3 trillion (2008).
By helping to re-employ veterans and the widows or widowers of deceased veterans we are helping them to reintegrate into society. This greatly increases the chances for the veteran to become a productive member of society as opposed to being a financial dependent of the state for 40-50 years.
Thanks,
George Beavis
I think this is important. Beavis is entitled to a complete and accurate answer, don’t you think? I hope Bainbridge will adopt a hiring policy that recognizes the service and sacrifice of veterans.
Can anyone in the city respond?
Dear Ms. Paulson. I am a communicatively disabled survivor of traumatic brain injury. One of my few remaining skills is written language. This often leads to the misconception, when I communicate via email that I am not profoundly disabled. Like many survivors of TBI, to continue receiving necessary medical services I have been reduced to poverty (which I don’t mind so much, I leave a smaller carbon footprint). After mandated deductions for caregiver services, I survive on Bainbridge on less than about $6,000 annually for all expenses: rent, food, transportation, care of service dog, laundry, clothes, eyeglasses, and toilet paper. Yes, I said I live on about $6,000 annually on Bainbridge Island.
According to most statistics, more than 60% of veterans return with a traumatic brain injury. I am not a veteran, but in my professional career, I facilitated capital projects and medical services for veterans; medical facilities, research and care for children and adults; cultural and education projects totaling more value in real dollars than Bainbridge Island will pass through their mismanaged budget in 50-100 years in real dollars.
As a legally vulnerable adult, I rarely leave my apartment. I have regularly been denied access from BI business with my service animal, Helpline House has regularly denied me access to BI recreational activities or access to facilities like the pool. I gave up asking. Recently, when I appealed to my religious group for assistance during construction at my apartments (to bring facilities up to code sufficiently for USDA refinancing – a very low bar), I was told that my concerns were “political”, and I was welcomed for worship, but would receive no support for these “political concerns.
As a long-time resident and visitor to Bainbridge (about 30 years), frankly, I am fearful of any further retaliation by BI agencies and organizations. For example, when BI police were summoned to the apartments by me, at the insistence of my Kitsap County case managers, the initial responding officer yelled at me, told me I was uncooperative (I had not said anything other than, “I am disabled and loud noises hurt my ears, but I can read body language”), and when I asked to make a report, he walked away. I did not receive the assistance for which the County had told me to ask. I was not asked to write out my concerns, as recommended by LEAA guidelines to law enforcement agencies.
Like Mr. Beavis and Mr. Koenig, my requests go unanswered. The apartments where I live were plastered with vinyl siding (one of the few completely non recyclable materials), and although federal and private foundation moneys are available for “best practices” like installation of energy efficient appliances, telecommunications devices, modern fire alarms or any sprinklers these opportunities were completely ignored. The apartment management company refused a County request to install a cable from the exterior to my bedroom for medically necessary communications.
A Stitch in Time. Dear Ms. Paulson. After reading comments by Mr. Spicer, I decided to take whatever additional blows to the gut may come, what may.
Please feel free to edit my previously posted comment for length, clarity or applicability (A common fault, not improved with TBI); to post my name (I am not listed in the telephone directory because I use online TTY only, for low vision and communicative disabilities of speech and auditory processing), but for those who need to know, my unpublished number is 842-9777).
Yes, I am a real person, and I am entitled by law with my e. signature, to grant you permission (and you only), to make inquiries to determine the authenticity of my identity.
And to Mr. Spicer, I hope he shall not reap what he sews [sic] as that may be more painful than harvesting the sown seeds of compassion. Steven Ziolkowski (e. signature under RCW & WAC for NSA via electronic communications)
COBI has a way of obfuscating and putting individuals down that is most unseemly. The more of an underdog that you appear to be, especially financially (not likely to sue them) the more entitled the Mayor, Council, City Attorney, staff and even the police are apt to behave in an unprofessional, unethical, and abusive manner.
I can not help to wonder based on our years of misuse of city authority against our family, why our tax dollars should pay for a city attorney. As Rod Stevens wrote in one of his many factually packed revealing articles, the City Attorney acts more like the Mayor’s personal attorney. It is more than true. Why is it that Bainbridge city government misconstrues the law against citizens so frequently, especially when the city has legal council who should provide for the correct interpretation of city codes and laws equally for all individuals? It’s much too convenient that the correct application of laws is in short supply for the average citizen. Yet the laws are applied or even misused to protect a special few connected with our Mayor and her inner circle of friends.
I have never lived in a community where the city government outwardly displays such disregard for its citizens, even lacking basic sympathy for those with special needs.
Take your concerns outside the city. Make the city accountable that way. Contact as many elected officials in the county and state as you can. Contact as many organizations as you can concerning the appalling lack of Human Rights on Bainbridge. Contact the Attorney General and the State Auditor. Continue to write about your dismay with our city officials to as many as you can. Don’t give up.
Eventhough I know that most people on this bog would hate to hear it, the BI police department is a city department that does offer veterenas preferece duing its hiring process. The department that is in most people’s eyes seens as evil in the flesh actually looks out for those who have severed and gives them a large advantage over those who have not. Just a little info.
Do many of the folks who run our city government suffer from antisocial personality disorder?
Definition:
Antisocial personality disorder is a psychiatric condition characterized by chronic behavior that manipulates, exploits, or violates the rights of others. This behavior is often criminal.
Reality Check–News about city govt has been so depressing lately, I’d be thrilled to hear something good. If what you say is true, I’d say the BIPD is ahead of the rest of the city on that score–and they should get credit where credit is due.
Dear Islander. In Kitsap, King and Pierce counties, of approximately 100 attorneys contacted by TTY, only one very excellent firm would work with a communicatively disabled, indigent client, on Bainbridge Island.
Yes, I established a legal precedent for those suffering cognitive disabilities in Kitsap County to be accommodated by electronic communications. The US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, does not provide accommodations through electronic means for persons with cognitive disabilities. And far as I know, I filed the first electronic Complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission. The Director of the State Commission then forbade the investigator to communicate with me via TTY.
I wrote to every Washington State Legislator regarding my alleged Complaint, and copied the editors of their districts’ newspapers (this made me very popular with my local representatives). My county case worker has located a cognitive interpreter, and I have been informed that I may ‘reopen’ my Complaint, as the Respondents in my Complaint have demonstrated by their actions that their responses were less than accurate (no one mentioned I may have been at a cognitive disadvantage filing my complaint).
Sadly, during construction one neighbor died, arguably due to preventable conditions aggravated by careless oversight and lax enforcement of City, County, State & Federal code. Never having contacted the BI police in a quarter century on BI, I naively assumed they would help me negotiate the excavation at the only entrance and exit to my apartment. They did not.
I wrote to every long-term care ombudsman in the State of Washington, asking why these conditions were permitted on BI; and I was told that ombudspeople are only for nursing home patients (ie, don’t distract them from their important work creating paradise in our nursing homes). Patty Murray’s Seattle staffer told me on TTY transcript that, “Senator Murray is above State law”; and Senator Cantwell’s Seattle staffer told me that “the Senator does not interfere in matters of State law”.
I telephoned State Senator Rockefeller, whose office I had emailed repeatedly, and he said “who?”. Although I wish no one harm, his recent fall from a ladder may give him insight regarding the consequences of having 15 lbs. of steel implanted into one’s legs. Yet, I have heard nothing from his office, either.
Although the Washington Human Rights Commission was assured that “I had been accommodated” (for my disabilities); and the County advised me to call BI police; a fall into an excavation separating me from my only entrance and exit did elicit a response from the State’s Adult Protective Services Investigator. This, after I contacted DSHS in Olympia via TTY and said my injuries could cost me my leg.
The Federal Telecommunications Act has mandated that municipal agencies accommodate TTY users for more than 50 years. Yet the DSHS worker, unable to follow the instructions of the relay operator in order to communicate clearly, called BI police and said, “He’s threatened to cut off his leg!”. Imagine your surprise, if you were awakened from a nap, with a police officer banging at your door, stating, “We were told you were going to cut off your leg”. Fortunately, a feature for most TTY callers, is a transcript of their exact conversation.
And yes, this did get me an interview with Adult Protective Services, in which I made the unusual request to investigate for abuse those municipal and non profit employees, mandated to provide accommodations by law. Either too arrogant, improperly supervised, or untrained (ignorant), they do not – and I requested that these individuals be investigated for inflicting unnecessary physical, psychological pain and anxiety – I think this is the definition of torture under the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, I have excellent standing for a juicy law-suit and I have a good attorney; but tell me Islander, please, exactly why should I spend my final years playing legal Robin Hood when I have enough – except to pay for injuries from my recent fall (and I have had enough of a system I paid with a lifetime to protect us all); and I have seen no good come from punishment, when what is required is leadership, vision (I don’t mean for another new development downtown), and compassion (and not, conveniently, just for people starving in Ometepe). S. Ziolkowski.
I just received an email from the state stating point blank that there is NO state law that prevents the city from offerring veterans preferenes outside the civil service arena (the police department being civil service).
The state said the following laws apply:
RCW 41.04.010 Veterans’ scoring criteria status in examinations.
RCW 73.16.010 Preference in public employment.
Heidi Audette
Communications Director / Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs
(360) 725-2154 “Serving Those Who Served”
WDVA on the Web
WDVA Home Page: http://www.dva.wa.gov
A seperate note about Iraq veterans joining our police department. If I just came back from my most resent tour in Iraq and am feeling totally burned out by the tension and violence in life, is that where I want a job or a place that it would be healthy for me to work?
I was a corpsman (medic) in vietnam. When I came back I went back to school and worked in a hospital. After 4 years of trying to take care of the wounded, it was the second worst career move I ever made. The first was enlisting in the service.
Thanks for everyone’s comments and ideas (including about the police department). It’s good to know that there are people out there that care about our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well I finally got a response from city hall.
“City employment policies regarding the hiring of veterans are consistent with State and Federal law. We are not revising City employment policies to provide hiring preferences beyond those provided by State and Federal laws.
Thank you for expressing your interest and concerns.
Mark V. Dombroski”
At least this is more truthful than hiding behind a state law that didn’t exist”.
I don’t think he knows about these maybe:
RCW 41.04.010 Veterans’ scoring criteria status in examinations.
RCW 73.16.010 Preference in public employment.
This is in response to Mr. Beavis crusade for veteran preference in City Government.
Mr. Beavis, can you tell me other than the Police Department, what other positions are there in the city govt where it is REQUIRED to take a civil service examination? The RCW’s you state seem to apply to only those that require an examination. Where are the RCWs that REQUIRE any CITY govt. to provide veteran preference?
You see Mr. Beavis, I am a veteran myself, and frankly, I am appalled at your lack of logic in this. You seem to go under the assumption that the city does not employ veterans at all. Is this true? Do you have concrete evidence to suggest not a veteran soul works at City Hall? Has the city ever employed a veteran outside the police department. I would be willing to bet there are.
Veterans have access to benefits that others can not be privy too. You honestly, with a straight face knowing this, tell me you would give preference to a veteran over a disabled person, or single mother trying to provide for her kids, or an African-Amercian with superior qualifications?
I believe in Equal Opportunity myself. Veterans should have equal opportunities to positions as any other person of race, gender or any other protected class when it regards discrimination. And they do. Which satisfies me.
Perhaps Mr. Beavis could explain who “COBI” is his statement:
“COBI told the American Legion that they would be happy to extend veteran’s preferences in employment except that state law prevents them from doing so.”
I didn’t hear that in the town hall meeting, and I don’t know when else “COBI” would have been making a policy statement at the American Legion.
I’m not a advocate of giving any person preferences for city employment. The city should hire the best qualified person that applies for the job/position. Veterans often have had responsibilities that enhance their workforce application. Such experience should be duly considered when weighed against other applicant’s qualifications.
As a combat veteran myself, I believe the poster “Equal Opportunity for ALL” is spot on.
I know that veterans work at city hall that is not the question and I don’t think I implied that that was the case. Better check you logic. If you look at my posting the issues I speak to are the unemployment rate amongst returning veterans, the suicide rate, the cost of treating veterans.
What I do complain about is the lack of response from the city and being lied to in the responses that I have received.
City Hall told the American Legion post some time ago that state law PREVENTs extending veteran’s preferences outside the civil service arena. They have also told me the same thing.
If the city is fallaciously claiming that they are prevented from extending benefits in hiring, then it leaves no room to discuss whether we should extend veteran preferences.
Check those RCW’s again and check USERRA, VETS and other legistaion pertaining to veterans preferences.
Veterans preferences apply to disabled vets, widows of vets, vets ao all colors and origans so it is not a matter of giving vets a better deal that another protected class as veterans statis is the more inclusive group (draw yourself a Venn diagram.
As to the great veterans benefits listen to the news, how many months does it take to get an appointment to see the Doctor about a traumatic brain injury.
Please don’t try to muddy the water by saying that I don’t think that the city has any veterans working for it. When I was trying to get answers from Elray about what state law he thought prevented extending veterans preferences in hiring, he kept calling over veterans to show me that worked for the city.
If you can’t give real answers Elray, dazzle them with misdirection.
Leave None Behind.
Dear Mr. Beavis. An anonymous donor has offered to pay you $10.00 to walk me and my service dog up the block and back for a half-hour each day, and every day you show.
I will give you all the PB&J sandwiches you can eat on whole wheat bread and an excellent reference if you show for one day.
We can arrange to meet at the corner outside McDonald’s. You may contact me via email through Ms. Paulson.
Mr. Beavis, I applaud your efforts to fight for the rights of Veterans, but I can’t help but think your fight here is a little misdirected itself.
Simply showing that Veterans are hired by the City outside the civil service arena tells me that there is no need for Veteran preference in the hiring practices of the City. The City gives consideration to Veterans and, surprise, even hires them. Wouldn’t a Veteran feel more pride knowing that the job was landed on merit alone? If a Veteran doesn’t land a job without the preference you state, doesn’t that mean their qualifications aren’t enough to be hired? I took great pride that when I applied and interviewed for my job (I am not a city employee), my service was commended and the experience I gained in the military landed me that job. Not some extra points on an exam.
Now, I did check those RCWs you state and they still don’t apply to your argument because with the exception of the Police Department, no other positions require an examination. And the one arena where it is required to take an examination and obtain veteran preference, is the one area where you state that Veterans shouldn’t be in, since they don’t want to come from a violent atmosphere to being a crime deterrer. Not that I have been following closely, but when was the last time the Island had a capital crime comitted involving gunshots and death?
I know USERRA and VETS. These do not apply in your argument either. USERRA is the Act that guarantees a persons job if they leave to go on active duty for a period of time. VETS is focused on preference for FEDERAL govt. jobs, not city or state.
To me, you argument uses very general points, but nothing specific and factual. What percentage of combat veterans come back with ‘traumatic brain injuries’? Come to think of it, what is a traumatic brain injury? Is this a physical or mental injury?
Oh, and I am still waiting with great anicipation for you to direct me to a RCW that REQUIRES the City’s hiring practices to use Veteran preference. Remember, city jobs, not Federal.
What I really derived from your last blog though was that this isn’t about achieving Veteran preference, but more a vendetta against some city employees, or worse, a vendetta against govt. as a whole. I am sure every employee at City Hall works hard to make the Island a better place. It is way too often that the lobbyists and voters are the ones who hinder progress and growth and not our elected officials and their staff.
I implore you to stop the name calling and look at the big picture. Or better yet, take Mr. Ziolkowski up on that PB&J sandwhich and help someone who wants help.
Well you are right about one thing, I do have a bad attitude towards government. An I apologize for impugning your integrity by thinking you were a city employee.
I guarantee that I have one of the worst attitudes around. But this isn’t about me, my “twisted logic”, what vendetta I may or may not have, my need for a PBJ or 10 bucks. I’m surprised no one has pointed out some of my twisted sentence structures!
But someone that calls someone else’s logic “twisted” shouldn’t complain to loudly when they get a little of their own back.
If you go back to the original posting on this subject, and go to the links that discuss the situation as it exists for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan , I hope you will understand what this is about.
Can Bainbridge Island do more to help veterans coming back from Iraq? Can we extend a hand to widows and widowers of veterans?
If a veteran comes home gets a job, reintegrates into society then society is better off the veteran is better of and they have a fighting chance of forgetting about Iraq. If on the other hand they come home and become part of the 18% that are unemployed (amongst younger vets), sit around thinking about the war and eventually go on a veterans disability what has it cost us. The disability rate is running about 30-40 percent if memory serves me. A veterans pension at 100% is roughly 2500/month. Is it better to pay that for the next 40 years or to help a vet get a job .
When they say that state law prevents them from doing something when the state Department of Veteran Affairs says it isn’t true it does cause me to have a bad attitude. When the city administrator forgets that he is the administrator and not part of the legislative part of our city government it doesn’t help my attitude. When the chief financial officer argues, like you, that because we have veterans on the payroll we don’t need to give veterans preferences when a new returning veteran is looking for a job.
Traumatic Brain injury is according to Wikipedia:
Traumatic brain injury (TBI), traumatic injuries to the brain, also called intracranial injury, or simply head injury, occurs when physical trauma causes brain damage. TBI can result from a closed head injury or a penetrating head injury and is one of two subsets of acquired brain injury (ABI). The other subset is non-traumatic brain injury, or injuries that do not involve external mechanical force (e.g. stroke, meningitis, anoxia). Parts of the brain that can be damaged include the cerebral hemispheres, cerebellum, and brain stem.
TBI can be mild, moderate, or severe, depending on the extent of the damage to the brain. TBI can cause a host of physical, cognitive, emotional, and social effects. Outcome can be anything from complete recovery to permanent disability or death.
PTSD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is more mental. But even here it is not a totally behavioral issue. People with PTSD have physical changes in their brain functions. They are hyper sensitive to adrenalin and have fight or fight response centers that are enlarged and more active than in most people.
I could be misinterpreting the RCW’s cited but to me (I’m not a lawyer and am generally ignorant), they say that we have an obligation to put returning veterans back to work in jobs they left or new jobs, civil service or not. I thought the USERRA applied since we take federal money in the form of grants, but maybe not.
RCW 41.04.010 Veterans’ scoring criteria status in examinations.
In all competitive examinations, unless otherwise provided in this section, to determine the qualifications of applicants for public offices, positions, or employment, either the state, and all of its political subdivisions and all municipal corporations, or private companies or agencies contracted with by the state to give the competitive examinations shall give a scoring criteria status to all veterans as defined in RCW 41.04.007, by adding to the passing mark, grade or rating only, based upon a possible rating of one hundred points as perfect a percentage in accordance with the following:
(1) Ten percent to a veteran who served during a period of war or in an armed conflict as defined in RCW 41.04.005 and does not receive military retirement. The percentage shall be added to the passing mark, grade, or rating of competitive examinations until the veteran’s first appointment. The percentage shall not be utilized in promotional examinations;
(2) Five percent to a veteran who did not serve during a period of war or in an armed conflict as defined in RCW 41.04.005 or is receiving military retirement. The percentage shall be added to the passing mark, grade, or rating of competitive examinations until the veteran’s first appointment. The percentage shall not be utilized in promotional examinations;
(3) Five percent to a veteran who was called to active military service for one or more years from employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions or municipal corporations. The percentage shall be added to promotional examinations until the first promotion only;
(4) All veterans’ scoring criteria may be claimed upon release from active military service.
RCW 73.16.010 Preference in public employment.
In every public department, and upon all public works of the state, and of any county thereof, honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines who are veterans of any war of the United States, or of any military campaign for which a campaign ribbon shall have been awarded, and their widows or widowers, shall be preferred for appointment and employment. Age, loss of limb, or other physical impairment, which does not in fact incapacitate, shall not be deemed to disqualify them, provided they possess the capacity necessary to discharge the duties of the position involved: PROVIDED, That spouses of honorably discharged veterans who have a service connected permanent and total disability shall also be preferred for appointment and employment.
While we are looking at the RCW you might want to check out
RCW 73.16.020
Failure to comply — Infraction.
All officials or other persons having power to appoint to or employment in the public service set forth in RCW 73.16.010, are charged with a faithful compliance with its terms, both in letter and in spirit, and a failure therein shall be a class 1 civil infraction.
[1987 c 456 § 30; 1895 c 84 § 2; RRS § 10754.]
Or
RCW 73.16.005
Intent — Purpose.
(1) It is the intent of the legislature to guarantee employment rights of members of the reserve and national guard forces who are called to active duty. The federal uniformed services employment and reemployment rights act of 1994 protects all such federal personnel. The legislature intends that similar provisions should apply to all such state personnel. Therefore, the legislature intends for chapter 133, Laws of 2001 to ensure protections for state-activated personnel similar to those provided by federal law for federal-activated personnel.
(2) The purposes of this chapter are to:
(a) Encourage noncareer service in the uniformed services by eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment that can result from such service;
(b) Minimize the disruption to the lives of persons performing service in the uniformed services as well as to their employers, their fellow employees, and their communities, by providing for the prompt reemployment of such persons upon their completion of such service; and
(c) Prohibit discrimination against persons because of their service in the uniformed services.
(3) Therefore, the legislature intends that the governmental agencies of the state of Washington, and all the political subdivisions thereof, should be model employers in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.
Another source MRSC Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington:
Veterans’ “Preference” or “Scoring Criteria” Status in Civil Service
Recent statutory amendments have significantly expanded the veterans’ preference relating to civil service hiring and even renamed it as a “scoring criteria” status. The legislature apparently felt it important, in light of Initiative 200, to eliminate any reference to “preferences,” even though this is not the type of preference that the initiative addresses. This MRSC Focus will explain the changes in the law, found in RCW 41.04.010, while providing a general overview of how this “scoring criteria” status applies to civil service hiring.
What is a scoring criteria status (formerly a preference status)?
A scoring criteria status is the addition of a certain percentage to the “passing mark, grade or rating” received in a competitive examination by a veteran as defined in RCW 41.04.005 and RCW 41.04.010. The percentage, which varies with the category of veteran, is based “upon a possible rating of one hundred points as perfect.” RCW 41.04.010. Under this scheme, for example, a veteran entitled to a 10 percent scoring criteria who scores a passing grade of 80 out of a possible 100 would receive an additional 8 points for a total score of 88. When the scoring criteria status can be applied also varies with the category of veteran.
More than 100,000 Washington State residents are estimated to be legally disabled as a result of traumatic brain injury (TBI). ABC News estimates that between 60-70%, as I remember, of returning injured veterans suffer TBI. If you are a veteran, then you know how difficult it is to get the VA to say you are “wounded”, especially by something they can’t see.
Squeaky wheels get our attention until the sound blends into all the other sounds of life, and then, usually, we wait until the wheel falls off and curse the wheel. With the constant advocacy of of many voices, DSHS has launched a “campaign” to “fight” the silent epidemic of TBI. It’s now a competition between the VA & DSHS to see who can talk more and do less.
An anonymous donor came to me last month and offered to help raise the level of awareness, and educate others regarding the needs for medical treatment and housing on BI for the disabled.
I suggested giving the money instead to meet the entire challenge of the generous landowner who wishes to donate 5.6 acres on Ferncliff for affordable housing. But when my anonymous donor learned our director of the Housing Resources Board has an $80,000+ annual salary, they said (and I quote with permission), “Let them sack the director, get a dedicated volunteer, and put their money where their mouths are.”
So the anonymous donor will create housing off Island for potentially high level functional survivors of TBI. Not because it’s cheaper, but because of the political and social climate here. And the land on Ferncliff will make excellent “affordable” housing, another word for subsidized housing, except it costs ten times more for the occupant, and does not jeopardize surrounding home values as greatly.
You can’t buy loyalty, and those who care for our children, parents, and disabled. provide us necessary services, wash our floors and clean our bathrooms cannot live on the salaries paid them – or they would be living in most of your houses, instead. They serves us, but are not our servants. The loyalty of those who serve us can’t be bought, it is earned with kindness, understanding, leadership and care (and care is not just a campaign for good feelings and a toll-free number).
For more information on TBI, I have provided links below. Don’t believe everything you read. According to some on the Governor’s TBI council, we may just need more prisons, instead of coordinated treatment: curse that squeaky wheel!
And to Knocker of Opportunities, TBI is a devastating physical injury. But to explain some of its many consequences, remember a researcher named Pavlov? He discovered the brains of dogs could be “conditioned” by stimuli. Not many people know that his laboratory basement flooded , where the dogs were housed in cages. They could only remain in their cages, watching in horror as the water rose to their noses.
In one evening, months of conditioning was erased, and some dogs became so dysfunctional, according to Pavlov, they had to be destroyed. That, Knocker, is called post traumatic stress disorder.
http://www.tbiwashington.org http://www.hum.wa.gov/RelatedNews/Pages/TBI.html
To the argument that these laws only apply to civil service jobs:
RCW – states in part “…applicants for public offices, positions, or employment, either the state, and all of its political subdivisions and all municipal corporations, or private companies or agencies contracted with by the state ….”
Private employers are required to abide by these laws, but they are not civil service.
To the equal treatment under the law:
I do agree with this in principal and by the same principal if we send one citizen we should send all citizens.
And if one person gets shot all should be shot.
But we don’t. What we do is to send some people with the understanding that their job will be there if they make it home, that we will take care of their service connected injuries, and that they can jump to the head of the line in Federal, State, County, and private jobs (if they take government money or contracts).
Veterans are not a separate group from other protected classes.
A veteran can be:
Old
Female
Poor
Disabled
Gay (if they don’t tell)
A single parent on AFDC
A Widow or widower
The logical set of people that are veterans includes people from all other sets, it even includes people that are wealthy and don’t need a job.
Why begrudge someone that has given up time that could have been spent furthering their civilian career the chance to make up for lost time when they , or if they, come home.
If we were to make things fair we would line up the 99% of the population that isn’t in Iraq and shoot some of them, blind a few, burn a few, take their jobs away, interrupt their educations, keep them away from their children and spouses for a couple of years and then pick a certain percent to be unemployed. And if some of the 99% claimed they were already veterans we would NOT exclude them, we would just call it a second tour.
That would be equal opportunity.
Any Lawyers out there want to translate this in regular english for me. Original page 4 seems to touch on the issue of civil service/ non-civil service.
Copied from AGO website:
AGLO 1976 No. 31 – April 29, 1976 backSlade Gorton | 1969-1980 | Attorney General of Washington
VETERANS ‑- EMPLOYEES ‑- VETERANS’ PREFERENCE ‑- CIVIL SERVICE ‑- PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
A discussion of the relationship between RCW 73.16.010, RCW 41.04.010 and 41.06.150 with respect to the preference rights of veterans in public employment with the state and its political subdivisions.
– - – - – - – - – - – - -
April 29, 1976
Honorable Ray Van Hollebeke
State Senator, First District
18735 53rd N.E.
Seattle, Washington 98155 Cite as: AGLO 1976 No. 31
Dear Senator Van Hollebeke:
By recent letter you have requested an explanation from this office regarding the relationship between certain statutes dealing with veterans’ preferences in public employment in our state.
The first statute to which you have referred is RCW 73.16.010 which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“In every public department, and upon all public works of the state, and of any county thereof, honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines who are veterans of any war of the United States, or of any military campaign for which a campaign ribbon shall have been awarded, and their widows or widowers, shall be preferred for appointment and employment. . . .”
Secondly, you have cited RCW 41.04.010 which provides that:
“In all competitive examinations, unless otherwise provided herein, to determine the qualifications of applicants for public offices, positions or employment, the state, and all of its political subdivisions and all municipal corporations, shall give a preference status to all veterans as defined in RCW 41.04.005, by adding to the passing mark, grade or rating only, based upon a possible rating of one hundred points as perfect a percentage in accordance with the following:
“(1) Ten percent to a veteran who is not receiving any veterans retirement payments and said percentage shall be utilized in [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] said veteran’s competitive examination and not in any promotional examination until one of such examinations results in said veteran’s first appointment: Provided, That said percentage shall not be utilized in any promotional examination;
“(2) Five percent to a veteran who is receiving any veterans retirement payments and said percentage shall be utilized in said veteran’s competitive examination only and not in any promotional examination until one of such examinations results in said veteran’s first appointment: Provided, That said percentage shall not be utilized in any promotional examination;
“(3) Five percent to a veteran who, after having previously received employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions or municipal corporations, shall be called, or recalled, to active military service for a period of one year, or more, during any period of war, for his first promotional examination only, upon compliance with RCW 73.16.035 as it now exists or may hereafter be amended;
“(4) There shall be no examination preferences other than those which have been specifically provided for above and all preferences above specified in (1), (2) and (3) must be claimed by a veteran within eight years of the date of his release from active service.”
And finally, you have made reference to chapter 41.06 RCW which pertains to the state civil service system and includes, in RCW 41.06.150, the following directive to the state personnel board:
“The board shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations, consistent with the purposes and provision of this chapter and with the best standards of personnel administration, . . . providing for veteran’s preference as required by existing statutes, with recognition of preference in regard to layoffs and subsequent reemployment for veterans and their widows by giving such eligible veterans and their widows additional credit in computing their seniority by adding to their unbroken state service, as defined by the board, the veteran’s service in the military not to exceed five years. . . .”
[[Orig. Op. Page 3]]
ANALYSIS
We are not quite certain from reading your letter precisely what the problem is that has caused you to write us. However, we would certainly agree with you that the scope of each of these three statutes is somewhat different. RCW 73.16.010 covers employment only with a state or county agency or upon the public works of those governmental bodies and simply states, abstractly, that designated veterans shall be “preferred” for such employment. If, however, a competitive examination is required in connection with the particular job in question, as is the case under both our state civil service system and those which govern certain local governmental employees as well,1/ RCW 41.04.010, supra, comes into play and specifies the precise degree of preference which a qualified veteran2/ will have over a nonveteran in the scoring of any such examination. In other words, if the position which a particular “qualified veteran” is seeking is one governed by a competitive examination process, the veteran will not have an absolute preference over any nonveteran seeking the same job but, instead, he will only be entitled to certain “bonus points,” if you will, in the scoring of this examination.
As far as RCW 41.06.150, supra, is concerned, that statute simply directs the state personnel board to promulgate rules and regulations giving effect to all applicable veterans’ preference statutes insofar as initial employment or promotion is concerned. Then that statute goes on to require the state personnel board to provide, by rule, for a recognition of the special status of a veteran in connection with any layoff or dismissal situations.
In order to attempt to put the foregoing in proper focus let us assume, for purposes of discussion, a hypothetical situation in which two individuals are seeking the same job with the state or a county (i.e., an employer to which both RCW 73.16.010 and RCW 41.04.010 apply)3/ One of those individuals is a qualified veteran for the purposes of both statutes and the other is not. In all other respects, however, the two applicants are basically equal with respect to their other qualifications for the position in question.
[[Orig. Op. Page 4]]
If the job which these two persons are seeking is not covered by a merit system of employment under which some form of competitive examination is utilized the veteran, relying upon RCW 73.16.010, should get the job. But if the position is one with regard to which a competitive examination is applicable the veteran, instead, will merely be entitled to a certain number of bonus points in the scoring of his examination in accordance with the percentage formula set forth in RCW 41.04.010.
Later, if in fact both individuals initially succeed in obtaining employment but the positions in question are covered by the state civil service law, chapter 41.06 RCW, the veteran nevertheless will have a preferred status insofar as any layoffs or dismissals are concerned. To the extent that seniority is a factor in determining which of two otherwise basically equal employees is to be laid off first, the nonveteran will be the first to go if, by reasons of the veteran’s military service as applied against the personnel board rules required by RCW 41.06.150, the latter thereby has more seniority than the nonveteran employee.
We recogize, of course, that the foregoing explanation of the relationship between these several statutes is somewhat general. If, however, you have any particular case in mind and would care to provide us with the pertinent facts thereof we would be happy to advise you further as to the proper application (in our opinion) of the above‑stated legal principles which we have derived from the statutes.
It is hoped that the foregoing will be of some assistance to you at this time.
Very truly yours,
FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Philip H. Austin
Deputy Attorney General
*** FOOTNOTES ***
1/See, e.g., chapters 41.08, 41.12 and 41.14 RCW.
2/See, RCW 41.04.005 which contains a somewhat different definition of the term “veteran” than is set forth in RCW 73.16.010, supra.
3/But see AGO 59-60 No. 30 [[to Herbert H. Davis, Prosecuting Attorney, Benton County on April 27, 1959]], copy enclosed, indicating the inapplicability of RCW 73.16.010 to classified positions in a county sheriff’s office.
“The human being is an organism of the polis”. – Aristotle, Politics I 1253a2-3 (Often mistranslated as “Man is a political animal”.)
Dear Mr. Beavis. First, I want to personally apologize, because I did not understand what you were asking, or stating, in your original posts. I assumed (yeah, I know what that makes), you merely had been discriminated against in employment, or attempted employment and were griping. And I am sincere in my offer to you, but thought it might give others pause to reconsider…
Second, after reading your most recent post, I began to listen more deeply to your message. And now, I want to apologize on behalf of us all. Please accept my apologies that we are so stupid and inconsiderate.
Third, according to my interpretation, you have been ’spot-on’ all along with regard to what the law states (its social, psychological, & moral implications are something else; otherwise against the cautions of Malthus, we could legislate social change).
I am not an attorney, and I have less than half a brain, now; but I know that an Opinion from the Office of the State AG is a powerful document. It’s context can be changed by subsequent legislation (Federal or State); judicial precedent; and a good attorney can tell you what else.
I have read your posting now, four times (yes, to the person in City Hall who said they weren’t an attorney, but could tell you what the law means; it takes several readings and carefully thinking to understand correctly – even for someone with a whole brain).
Third, the AGO states unequivocally (I paraphrase), “if a veteran meets certain criteria and the municipal employer and the position offered, or employment in which the veteran is engaged, meet certain criteria; then THE VETERAN IS TO BE GIVEN CERTAIN PREFERRED STATUS.
Fourth, our beloved City asks our loyalty and cooperation (not to mention our involuntary cooperation). Aristotle was no turnip. And the nature of the fundamental bonds between us human animals and the whole damned pack clearly means no one in City Hall can turn away from the time or trouble to answer your question generally and specifically (otherwise, in olden times they would have been stoned, and I don’t mean escorted to happy hour).
Fifth, your story is a nationally news worthy item. It’s implications are profound to us all, in my opinion. I appeal to someone to translate your thread into a story.
Last, I tried to find my Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect, splayed on the floor under volumes of the 11th Ed. Britannica, edges now dog eared, thrown off the shelves by the force of exterior construction at my apartments. I was allowed to remain here during the devastation as a form of ‘reasonable accommodation’, until my apartment was declared uninhabitable – this, my Bainbridge religious group said was a “political problem” that I should solve on my own. I finally found the Lexicon.
For some of us, it takes a while to say what we mean, and longer for others to understand. Both parties must assume the intention of communicating (for the moment, let’s ignore the premise of respectful communication as part of this process).
I went back to the ancient Greek, because like you, I know the best reference is no better than it’s source documents. And sure enough (although I don’t know how to make my computer spell polis in Greek), here it is:
“polis, ptolis. (with references to all citations in Homer; and various grammatical forms) 1. A town or city; 2. the highest part of a city, the citadel; 3. with special reference to the inhabitants or community”
The primary sources of our Western Civilization elevate us from political animals to human beings within a community. Remember that next time someone says we are political animals. First, bite them; second, quote Aristotle accurately.
Steven,
No apology needed. I plan to take you up on the PBJ someday soon. A PBJ is an epicurean delite not to be passed up to hastily.
As to understanding what I was trying to say, the fault is mine. My sentence structures are way to twisted sometimes, so no probem.
Besides understanding is only achieved when there is discussion, which is one of the reasons I have a problem with the way the city treats this and every other problem – with a “sit down and shut up attitude towards the citizens”
George
I have been told by Olympia that Mark is in the process of incorporating 73.16 into the city’s policy manual. If true this is great news. I hope that they check out the parts of the federal law that apply to hiring and training of disabled veterans and former employees that get called up and on returning ask for their job back.
Having a son that is significantly younger than I am sometimes helps keep me in touch with contemporary culture. The following is a song I heard while driving with him. The video part is not for those with a weak stomach. I also think it answers the “why?” of the issue above.
Letters Home from the Garden of Stone – Everlast
http://youtube.com/watch?v=10ej46Mhshg