Times' Reporter Reports on Petition Interaction

I missed these on Saturday but the Times' Brian Rosenthal was out and about on Saturday and here's what he heard from signature gatherers (reported via his tweets):


Charter school signature-gatherer's message isn't exactly accurate: "Hey, can you sign a petition to get more funding in education?" ‪

Charter school signature-gatherer says he's from California, 1 of ~400 ppl here. But he doesn't think they'll meet the deadline. ‪

Ran into 1st charter school petition signature-gatherer (at gay pride). He says he's getting paid $4/signature

That's $14 an hour and $4 a signature.  No wonder their Craigslist ad says you could make $1,000 a month.   And yet they had to import them from California?  Interesting.  

Update:  I had thought the Yes on 1240 would have thru July 6th to get signatures but it seems it is July 5th with all petitions due to the Secretary of State's office by July 6th.

Opinions please; will the 4th of July holiday hurt or help this effort?  People too focused on fun to pay attention or great opportunity to reach masses of people?

Comments

At least I can repatriate said…
I did not know that nonvoters, noncitizens, or people not on the Washington state voters list could sign initiatives.

I am a noncitizen, but do not support the initiative (I actually have one of those No on 1240 print outs visible from the rear of my car).

I do not know why the initiative 1240 does not guarantee access for English Language Learners nor for children with learning disabilities. I doubt any pro-1240 people or initiative signature gatherer could or would tell me.
6/25/12, 3:16 PM
Patrick said…
I would think the July 4 holiday would help, compared to your average working Wednesday. It'll still be tight and it sounds like their petition gatherers are so, um, enthusiastic that they'll have a lot of bad signatures.
6/25/12, 4:33 PM
seattle citizen said…
Lying to get signatures? That's a heck of a way to run a democracy.
6/25/12, 4:49 PM
Disgusted said…
Thanks, Brian. I hope you consider interviewing LEV and Stand. I would LOVE to know the training advocacy groups put signature collectors through. This story NEEDS to be told.
6/25/12, 5:09 PM
Anonymous said…
The paid signature-getters are lying all over the place. They are all over the ferry lines. And get this - they wear orange safety vests with the word "ACTIVIST" on the back as if they are doing this voluntarily based on passion for the issues! As if they aren't being paid. And they lie and say charter schools include all children. The lies and misrepresentation are an outrage!!

foroccupyingjsc
6/25/12, 6:41 PM
seattle citizen said…
Is there any sort of legal action that can be taken to at least document these lies? Can affidavits be submitted to the AG? This is an outrage. "Activist" my a**. Can LEV and whoever else is hiring these people at least have the spotlight of public attention put on them? For hiring lying "activists" as the only way to get their initiative on the ballot? Is this the "conversation about charters" the Reformers want? Lies sold on streetcorners at $4.00 a pop?
6/25/12, 6:59 PM
Anonymous said…
Well, I plan to take a page from the right-wingers this weekend and do some recording. I can't help it if my iPhone is on accidentally while I'm getting the lying charter spiel, can I?
Sunlight is a good thing.
CT
6/25/12, 8:15 PM
Patrick said…
Lying in general is not illegal, and signature gatherers are not under oath (possibly regarding fraud in the actual signature, but not in statements they make about the initiative).

This isn't something new for this initiative, paid signature gatherers are a hell of a way to legislate.

Recourse is publicizing their lies for other possible signers, and for the election if it makes it to the ballot.
6/25/12, 8:20 PM
Anonymous said…
I HATE the entire initiative process. I'm a believer in government by representation. Maybe I'll change my mind someday, but as long as businesses can pay people to gather signatures, and those people can say anything to get the name on the line, I don't think it's any less corrupt or more grassroots than what our founding fathers devised. Consequently, I don't sign ANY initiative petitions—even if it's something I believe in. I wonder how many people like me are out there?

SolvayGirl
6/25/12, 10:47 PM
Anonymous said…
Overheard at Central Market in Shoreine: "Go ahead and sign. You can always vote no on the ballot." I have stopped going to the grocery store until later in the evening to avoid raising my blood pressure.

North Seattle Mom
6/26/12, 7:13 AM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Solvay, my experience is that there are some people who will sign nearly anything, believing "it just puts it on the ballot" and then they can vote on it later. I find that quite odd.

But I think allowing paid signature gatherers was a game changer for our initiative process and not a good one. That it is legal and yet you can't find out how many gatherers are paid and how many are volunteer seems wrong.
6/26/12, 8:45 AM
Anonymous said…
I wonder if there is a way to start an initiative to ban paid signature gatherers for initiative. If initiatives are supposed to truly be grass roots, there should be rules on signature gathering. Otherwise, it is another process by which laws are bought and paid for.

very annoyed mom
6/26/12, 8:59 AM
Someone said…
I had the same thought re: legislation on paid signature gathering - it's apparently harder to do than one might think - several states have tried - Oregon has a successful ban on "pay per signature" - all paid signature folk have to be paid on a hourly wage, not per signature - which would seem to take away the incentive to fib to get more signers -
6/26/12, 2:00 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
6/29/12, 6:55 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
7/1/12, 9:24 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more