It took Democratic staff in Washington’s Legislature a little longer but they have joined their Republican colleagues in approving two-year contracts, concluding the first-ever round of collective bargaining for legislative employees.

Legislative assistants, policy analysts and communications staff in the House Democratic Caucus and legislative assistants in the Senate Democratic Caucus unanimously ratified agreements in separate votes in late December. The decisions came nearly three months after workers overwhelmingly rejected proposed contracts with their employers, which are the chief clerk of the House and secretary of the Senate.

“We’re pretty excited. It’s not everything we wanted. But it’s a reasonable first contract,” Josie Ellison, a communications specialist and member of the House Democratic Caucus bargaining team, said Thursday night. “For now, everybody seems pretty enthusiastic about it.”

The Washington Public Employees Association represented both Democratic staff bargaining units.

“This historic agreement marks a new chapter for our members, providing the protections and support they deserve,” Amanda Hacker, association president said in a statement.

Legislative assistants in the House and Senate Republican caucuses approved their respective two-year agreements in September.

Each contract contains pay hikes of 3 percent on July 1, 2025 and 2 percent a year later, the same amount offered to other state employee unions. State lawmakers and the next governor, Bob Ferguson, will now decide whether to fund them in the next two-year budget.

Under the collective bargaining law, state employee unions — including legislative staff units — needed to submit a ratified contract by Oct. 1 to be considered for funding. Because Democratic staff did not meet the deadline, they will need to make a separate case to Ferguson and lawmakers to fund their deals.

Jeremy Knapp, an executive legislative assistant with the Senate Democratic Caucus and member of the bargaining team, said Thursday that administration of the Senate and House are supportive.

“It’s in the Legislature’s hands now,” he said.

A 2022 law cleared the way for partisan legislative staff to unionize and negotiate terms and conditions for the workplace.

Employees of the Democratic and Republican caucuses in each chamber had to be in separate units unless a majority of each caucus voted to be in the same unit. All four units negotiated collectively on economic issues, like wages and benefits, and separately on workplace-related issues.

“The collective bargaining agreements represent several months of hard work by the negotiating teams and we are pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement with both the Legislative Professionals Association and the [Washington Public Employees Association],” Chief Clerk of the House Bernard Dean wrote in an email.

The contracts with Democratic staff call for a third-party arbiter in the grievance process. That means if a dispute arises on a contract provision, the two sides will have access to arbitration through the American Arbitration Association, to resolve it. This had been a sticking point as employers resisted involvement of an outside party, employees said.

“It gave us what we think is a very fair grievance process,” Knapp said.

Secretary of the Senate Sarah Bannister called the agreement “a significant milestone” that “brings a sense of relief and allows us to focus fully on the work ahead.”

She said the decision to add a panel with an arbitrator “was made collaboratively, reflecting a commitment from everyone to ensure fairness, transparency, and efficiency in resolving disputes.”

The contracts also outline new ways to resolve conflicts between elected officials and legislative staff. And there are provisions to create a “transition” pool for union members facing the loss of a job because the lawmaker they work for retires, loses re-election or leaves office for another reason.

Knapp said the Senate contract lays out how a person facing the loss of work could get a job as a session aide to avoid unemployment. There’s also language ensuring the employer provides workers, who are at-will employees, with two weeks notice before being let go or two weeks pay if fired.

This story was first published in the Washington State Standard. Read the original here.

QUINCY (WGEM) – The road closure for Washington Street between 7th and 8th streets has been extended for fire hydrant repair.

Officials stated that the closure has been extended to Jan. 15.

Officials also warn motorists to use alternative routes and drive with caution.

Copyright 2025 WGEM. All rights reserved.

The only constitutionally mandated event on Inauguration Day is for the president-elect to take the oath of office. But on the first Inauguration Day, in 1789, George Washington did something else.

He gave a speech.

Every president since has followed his example and delivered an inaugural address as part of the national celebration.

These addresses are more than just a series of individual speeches. Rhetoric scholars Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson argue that each inaugural address is not simply marking one stage in the ritual of political transition. Each is also part of a genre that has characteristics which, at some level, are expected and understood by speakers and audiences. There have been 59 inaugural addresses, starting with Washington, and while they may have differed in style and even specific subjects, virtually all feature these characteristics, which range from calls to unify the country to setting forth political principles.

The political history collections at the National Museum of American History, where I am a curator specializing in the history of presidential campaigns and campaign rhetoric, include several objects that illustrate these characteristics.

Exploring the genre of inaugural addresses through quotations and objects from the past can help listeners better understand the opening speech of a new administration, the first act in a job that began with the taking of the oath.

(Re)Unification of the audience

Inaugurations serve as the transition point between the competition of a campaign and the needs of an administration beginning to govern. For the audience to properly fulfill their role as witnesses to this investiture of power, they must be unified and reconstituted as “we the people.”

In the words of political scientist Lee Sigelman, these speeches are “literally brimming with verbal tokens of unity.”

There are references to our founders, our nation and the future we face. In 1957, Dwight Eisenhower spoke of the purposes “to which we, as a people, are pledged,” and Benjamin Harrison called his 1889 inaugural moment a “mutual covenant” between himself and the people. George W. Bush in 2001 united his listeners, saying, “Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves.”

Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural in 1801 may have been the most explicit: “We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”

Reaffirmation of national values

New presidents must also establish their qualifications for the office by demonstrating they understand and will preserve the shared values that are key to what Bill Clinton in 1993 called “the very idea of America.”

These traditional values are expressed in words such as freedom, liberty, democracy and courage. In 1981, Ronald Reagan reminded the audience, “Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. Jimmy Carter in 1977 summarized these values into “our belief in an undiminished, ever-expanding American dream.”

Setting forth political principles

Unlike many other presidential addresses, most notably the State of the Union, the inaugural does not advocate specific legislation but rather articulates more general philosophies that will guide a new administration. When policies are offered, they are less a call for action than a demonstration of a president’s commitment to the democratic system.

In 1845, James Polk promoted his “plain and frugal” economic plans because he said a national debt “is incompatible with the ends for which our republican Government was instituted.” Herbert Hoover said that the policies he listed in his 1929 address would be tested against the “ideals and aspirations of America.”

Even William Howard Taft, whose 1909 inaugural was among the most policy specific, framed his ideas with respect to the “proper” role of the federal government “in what it can and ought to accomplish for its people.”

Enacting the presidential role

Candidates give speeches that are, for obvious reasons, partisan and self-promoting. But when the campaign ends and governing begins, presidents must demonstrate an understanding of their role within the broader system.

In his first inaugural in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt moved out of campaign mode and acknowledged the constraints on his “leadership of frankness and vigor.” He pledged to rely on his “constitutional duty” to work with Congress.

Rhetoric scholars Campbell and Jamieson add that these speeches must also enact the “public, symbolic role of president of all the people” by revealing traits such as humility and reliance on a higher power. A typical example is found in the conclusion of Warren Harding’s 1921 address: “I accept my part with single-mindedness of purpose and humility of spirit, and implore the favor and guidance of God in His Heaven. With these I am unafraid, and confidently face the future.”

Fulfilling ceremonial expectations

Because of the celebration that surrounds them, inaugural addresses are expected to reflect stylized, ceremonial speaking. Such speeches strive to reach beyond the immediate situation to evoke timeless themes using memorable phrases.

In 1961, John Kennedy challenged Americans across the decades to “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” The phrases “mystic chords of memory” and “better angels of our nature,” among the most memorable words in presidential rhetoric, have been applied to countless situations since Abraham Lincoln first uttered them in 1861.

Not all inaugural addresses achieve greatness. Some have been quite forgettable. But each of them has tried to fulfill these expectations, helping to sustain what Franklin Roosevelt in his second inaugural called “our covenant with ourselves.”