Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Letter of Thanks from Wendy Harris to City re: emergency moratorium

To: Mayor Dan Pike
CC: City Council, Planning and Community Development, City Environmental Resources Division-Public Works Department
From: Wendy Harris

Date: 5.28.08

Re: Proposed Amendment to the CAO/EPF Law

Dear Mayor Pike:

I applaud your recent action in declaring an emergency moratorium on development within the Lake Whatcom watershed, Ordinance 2008-05-053. As noted within the Ordinance, there is irrefutable evidence, from both the TMDL and Huxley’s Institute for Watershed Studies, that the water quality of Lake Whatcom has deteriorated over the last 20 years, endangering the health and welfare of local residents, fish and wildlife. Federal and state laws dictate that the City takes action to restore the health of the Lake.

The results of the TMDL “paint a dramatic picture of how much work needs to be done….It will be up to local government leaders to develop strategies and pass laws that improve stormwater management…” so the full impacts of development are deflected. You have risen to the challenge set out in the TMDL by taking an important step forward in resolving this environmental crisis.

Unfortunately, Lake Whatcom is not the only natural resource located within the City that is suffering from chronic environmental degradation. A 2006 study by the City, located on the COB website, documented the negative impact of development on City streams. Of 18 samples taken from 11 different streams located within the City, only 2 passed applicable fecal coliform standards. As far back as 1995, a City Wildlife Habitat Plan, also located on the COB website, indicated that development results in loss of habitat necessary for the survival of fish and wildlife.

Additionally, the City’s Wildlife Habitat Plan explained how numerous federal, state and local laws were inadequately drafted and/or implemented, and thus, failed to properly protect wildlife habitat. Similarly, the Department of Ecology’s notes, on its TMDL website, that in most cases where a TMDL is required, water quality standards could be met if existing programs were implemented and existing regulations enforced.

In this context, I urge you to reconsider the City’s plan to allow exemptions to its Critical Areas Ordinance (“CAO”) for public works projects. The admitted purpose for this exemption is to provide relief from the costs of complying with the environmental protection laws currently in place. However, the requested exemption, as drafted, fails to establish standards to ensure that: (1) exempted projects meet the definition of an Essential Public Facility (“EPF”) under the Growth Management Act (“GMA”); (2) the project is important enough to warrant financial relief at the expense of the environment. These standards should be mandatory, particularly since the City’s Municipal Codes already define and allow for the siting of an EPF, including the siting within a Critical Area in conformity with the normal mitigation standards set out in the CAO.

Establishing and protecting Critical Areas lies at the heart of the GMA. As noted by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (“CTED”) in its Critical Area Handbook, available on its website, the protection of Critical Areas is essential. “Critical areas perform key functions that enhance our environment and protect us from hazards. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include, but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance, and attenuation (the slow release) of flood waters; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; protection from natural hazards; historical, archaeological, and aesthetic value protection; and recreation.” Once destroyed, Critical Area are expensive and difficult, if not impossible, to restore.

Accordingly, the GMA imposes a duty on local governments to adopt development regulations that ensure no net loss in the ecological function of critical areas and resource lands. However, the results of the TMDL, Huxley’s Institute For Watershed Studies, the City’s Wildlife Habitat Plan and its 2006 Creek Drainage Basin Study, speak loudly regarding the on-going degradation of our natural resources. In light of this environmental degradation, it is clear that the “no net loss” standards of the GMA (as well as the SMA) are not being implemented and enforced. This indicates that the City’s CAO needs to be strengthened, and/or enforced more vigorously to ensure that there is no net loss of ecological function in our Critical Areas.

Instead, contrary to the available information, and in the mist of a necessary emergency moratorium on Lake Whatcom watershed development, the City intends to weaken its CAO to allow more, and less expensive, development. Allowing a CAO exemption betrays the vision and leadership that you have shown in passing the emergency moratorium. It mocks the City’s title as the greenest city in Washington, it contradicts strong public support for protecting our environment, and it violates our legal responsibilities under the GMA and SMA.

Mayor Pike, you have taken a great stride forward for the cause of public health and safety by refusing to allow Lake Whatcom, itself a critical area, to be subject to continuing degradation. Please do not begin walking backwards. Let us all learn an important lesson from the TMDL and take the necessary actions today to avert additional emergency situations tomorrow.

Sincerely,
Wendy Harris
Bellingham resident; WSU BeachWatchers/Watershed Master; Board Member, People for Lake Whatcom

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Bloggers cause Anxiety -

During the last two weeks of December, 2007, I searched high and low for guides to help me set up Latte Republic. Unfortunately, I did not have access to the Handbook for Bloggers and Civil Dissidents from Reporters without Borders. The author, Clothilde Le Coz, is head of the Internet Freedom desk at Reporters Without Borders.

Le Coz tells readers: "Bloggers cause anxiety. Governments are wary of these men and women, who are posting news, without being professional journalists. Worse, bloggers sometimes raise sensitive issues which the media, now known as "traditional", do not dare cover. Blogs have in some countries become a source of news in their own right.

Nearly 120,000 blogs are created every day. Certainly the blogosphere is not just
adorned by gems of courage and truth. It is also often the source of confusion and disinformation and not all bloggers have the souls of reporters. That is why this handbook contains advice on creating and updating a blog, with no other ambition than that of free expression. For others it will be a struggle to draw attention to a particular issue."


The Handbook also addresses freedom of the press in third world nations and the growing importance of bloggers as sources of non-traditional news. I wish I would have had an opportunity to read the Handbook when I was setting up Latte.

The entire handbook (81 pages) can be read at the website address posted below:

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/guide_gb_md.pdf

Saturday, May 24, 2008

PDC issues findings regarding local Campaign Violations

The purpose of Public Disclosure is to promote a climate in which candidates conduct honest and fair campaigns.

In regards to Mr. Bornemann's statement that "Some people were looking at specific campaigns, for whatever reasons." I agree wholeheartedly. I was looking for a pattern of violations, not one or two mistakes.

In the formal administrative charges against Mr. Bornemann, the PDC found that 57% of Mr. Bornemann's reports were filed late.

My goal as a public watch dog is to establish a public confidence that each voter has the ability to access campaign records so that they may understand the source of a candidate's financial support.

Federal and state campaign laws encourage candidates to conduct campaigns openly and fairly. If a candidate chooses not to abide by the law, a citizen (any citizen) has a legal right to file a complaint.

In the coming months, I hope that Mr. Bornemann and Mr. Pike come to understand that they have a responsibility to obey campaign laws and come to understand the real reason why citizens file campaign-related complaints.

Federal and State regulatory agencies do not open formal investigations without solid evidence to support the allegations listed in a complaint.

To state that my complaints were somehow "personally motivated" or just a "campaign stunt" is immature. And in my opinion, demonstrates a basic lack of regard for the laws that our elected officials take an oath to uphold.

I'm glad to have this behind me - the nastiness, the vandalism and personal attacks were unprecedented and uncalled for.

(And, Yes, I'm already reviewing 2008 election PDC reports as they are filed with the PDC).

My commitment to protect the pubic's right to know is not tied to any particular individual's campaign.

Why did I file a complaint against Dan Pike? Mr. Pike appears to believe that it is some sort of "personal vendetta." But Mr. Pike also had an established pattern of violations, as demonstrated by the e-mails between Mr. Pike's campaign and Randy Unruh, a Political Financial Specialist for the PDC.

Please note the dates of the correspondence. I gave Mr. Pike and his staff months to fix the errors before I filed a complaint. To claim otherwise is not only sour grapes, it’s divisive sour grapes, and unbecoming of the city’s chief executive office.


_____________________________________________

Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:36 PM
To: dan©pikeformayor.com’
Subject: PDC Reports

Mr. Pike,
I have been assigned to monitor your campaign, and hopefully keep on top of any problems before they turn into complaints. I have been assigned to monitor the candidates running for Mayor of Bellingham.

I have reviewed your reports that have been submitted to the PDC. Below is a list of errors that need to be addressed immediately.

The C-4 for the period 2-1-07 through 2-28-07 - You have a C-3 filed 4-20-07 for a deposit on 2-20-07 of $300; however on your schedule A and C-4 $0.00 is shown as cash received.
The C-4 for the period 3-1-07 through 3-31-07 — The carry forward balances for receipts and expenditures. They should match the ending balance from February of $1,474.73 for your receipts and $1,250.00 for your expenditures.

The C-4 for the period 4-1-07 through 4-30-07 — The receipt carry forward is $3,445.65. The ending balance for March was $2,966.96, these should match.
Amended schedule B # 100211305— Employer/occupation is missing for Laura Boynton and All Heugh. These need to be recorded every time for contributions in excess of $100.

C-3 for deposit on 4-25-07 — Laura Boynton employer/occupation is missing.
Schedule B #100212945 — all of the employer/occupations are not listed for contributions more than $100

C-4 for the period of 6-1-07 through 6-30-07 — Previous balance for receipts should be $10,676.14 you show $14,533.36.

Previous balance for ‘expenditures should be $8,068.37, you show $11,868.37. You show no deposits on schedule A but have C-3 showing deposits on 6-11-07 of $369.60, 6-22-07 of $2000.00, and A..21 -07 of $1 O0, for a total of $2,469.60.

C-3 # 100215323— no employer occupation for Edith Pike
C-3 # 100215324— No employer occupation for Alfred and Winnie Adrian
C-3 # 100218403— No employer occupation for Edith Pike, Anonymous money must be reported on line 1a, not in section 2.

Please repair these mistakes immediately.

You are in a hotly contested race and I am sure your financing will be looked at. If someone were to complain prior to you correcting these errors it may lead to an investigation and possible enforcement, which we are trying to avoid.

If I can be of assistance or you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (360) 753-1981 or by e-mail at
Randall R, Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission

_______________________________________________

From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:15AM
To: ‘dan@pikeformayor.com’
Cc: Jennifer Hansen
Subject: RE: PDC Reports

Dan,

I am asking Jennifer Hansen, our filing specialist to help you in making the corrections. I am forwarding this e-mail as well as talk to her. She will get hold of you soon. Until that time don’t worry.

Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________

From: dan@pikeformayor.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:05 AM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: RE: PDC Reports

Mr. Unruh,

I am trying to correct the errors you pointed out in my PDC filings, but am having some trouble with finding where/how I can put edits in place. For example, there are several contributors who did not have occupations listed.

These are all retired people, and I did not realize there was a category for that under ‘Occupation, and now cannot find a way to edit the transactions to reflect that information.
I see a category titled ‘Bookkeeping Adjustments’ which says to contact PDC staff before using. Is that the right place to enter the changes I need to make? If not, where is it? If so, do you have any cautionary notes, advice, etcetera, before I attempt these changes.

Thanks for your help with this, and for your work in keeping our elections process honest and transparent.

Dan Pike
_____________________________________________

Original Message
Subject: PDC Reports
From: “Randy Unruh”
Date: Thu, July 19, 2007 3:36 pm
To:
dan@pikefonnayor.com

Mr. Pike,

I have been assigned to monitor your campaign, and hopefully keep on top of any problems before they turn into complaints. I have been assigned to monitor the candidates running for Mayor of Bellingham.

I have reviewed your reports that have been submitted to the PDC. Below is a list of errors that need to be addressed immediately.

The C-4 for the period 2-1 -07 through 2-28-07 - You have a C-3 filed 4-20-07 for a deposit on 2-20-07 of $300; however on your 11/15/2007
_______________________________________________

Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:50 AM
To: Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: refund contributions

Ken,

I’ll let Sally answer this one. I think she is off today.

Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission

______________________________________________

From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 7:28 PM
To: Randy Unruh; Sally Parker
Subject: refund contributions

Randy and Sally:

After looking over the Manual, we have decided that we must return the donations we received from Canadian donors, and also from another political committee. I have done the “refund contribution” transaction in ORCA in the expenditures section, and now need to correct the C3 reports, and amend the C4s.

It says to correct the transaction. Does that mean to un-deposit the funds, and delete or zero-out the donation?

Thank for your advice. I’d like to take care of this on Monday, so I can have everything correct before I file the 10/16 C4.

Ken Bronstein
Committee to Elect Dan Pike
______________________________________________

Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:56 AM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: 2 questions

Ken,

I’ll look at your submissions. Next time you can correct $ errors using a schedule C, that way you don’t have to correct all the subsequent filings. If you find another error contact Sally Parker or Jennifer Hanson and they will help you through the schedule C process. I’ll take a look at the McShane reports.

Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________

From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:58 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: 2 questions

Randy, this is Ken Bronstein from the Dan Pike for Mayor Campaign. I do have a couple of questions.

First, we found an early in-kind donation entry that was not correct. The value was too high. We think it was just a key-stroke error. The transaction was from May, so I went to the original transaction, corrected the amount, and then amended the C4 report for that period, and each period since. Would you please take a look to make sure everything still looks correct? I think I did it right, but just want to make sure.

Secondly: our opponent’s (Dan McShane) C4s show a significant amount of expenditures to the candidate’s wife (Lisa McShane). There are descriptions of the types of expenditures (campaign signs, event, etc.) but no disclosure that I can see of the original vendor who provided the goods/services. Shouldn’t there be some more information available, or is there somewhere else to look for this information? I know the regulations state that there must be receipts to back up these charges. On the occasions where I’ve reimbursed our candidate for out-of-pocket expenses, I’ve listed the vendor whom he paid in the description on the C4 (and kept the receipts, of course).

Thanks for your help.

Ken Bronstein
______________________________________________

Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:48 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: RE: 2 more questions
Ken,

NO. You cannot accept donations from out of country. NO. A candidate committee cannot make donations from one candidate committee to another. There are very specific instructions on what can and cannot be done with surplus campaign money.

Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission

______________________________________________

From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: 2 more questions

Randy, 2 more questions have come up.

1) Is it allowable for our campaign to accept a donation from a donor in Canada? One donor is a relative, and the other is a business.

2) We received a $500 donation from the campaign committee for another candidate. This is a current city council member, and the donation is from donations she had received during a previous campaign for her current seat.

Thanks again!

Ken Bronstein
Committee to Elect Dan Pike Mayor
________________________________________________

Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:47 PM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: Filing Errors

Ken,

The following errors need to be corrected:

• C-3 # 100226328 — Wes Frysztacki — No occupation
• C-3 # 100226329 — Shirley Zuanich — No occupation
• C-3 # 100226933 — Kim Erickson — No occupation -
Christopher Grannis — No employer
• C-3 # 100227597 — Kim Erickson — No occupation
• C-3 # 100228158 — Gerry Wilbour — No occupation

When you list ‘self” as employer you still must list the donors occupation (i.e. consultant)
If you have any questions please call me at (360) 753-1981 or e-mail
Please make and notify me of the above corrections prior to October 25, 2007.

Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission

_______________________________________________

Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: Complaint

Ken,

The PDC has received a formal complaint from Elisabeth Britt concerning the Dan Pike Campaign. This complaint is in a fact finding phase and may not be logged in. I have been able to dispel most of the complaint, but need some information on the remainder. Ms. Britt states that the Pike Campaign had three fundraising events recently:

September 18, 2007 — At the Bellwether Hotel
September 29, 2007 — At the American Museum of American Radio
October 3, 2007 —This was “Hosted by Developers”

I have found expenses for room rental for the musician and for Food and Beverages from Harborside Bistro, and in-kind contributions of food, catering, and Radio Museum room rental.
Where is the information on the Bellwether Hotel (Expenses or In-kind contributions) and the fundraiser hosted by the developers (room, food in-kind or expenses). Can you designate which of the recorded in-kind contributions and the expenses is for what fundraiser?
I need a written explanation now, and then we can decide how to record what is determined.

Thank you,

Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________

Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:33 PM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: Complaint

Ken,

Thanks. I am preparing a ‘will not investigate memo now”. No further action will be taken.

Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission

______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:13 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Cc: dan@pikeformayor.com
Subject: RE: Complaint
Randy, my comments are next to your questions below:

From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: Complaint

Ken,

The PDC has received a formal complaint from Elisabeth Britt concerning the Dan Pike Campaign. This complaint is in a fact finding phase and may not be logged in. I have been able to dispel most of the complaint, but need some information on the remainder. Ms. Britt states that the Pike Campaign had three fundraising events recently:

September 18, 2007 — At the Bellwether Hotel
September 2 2007 — At the American Museum of American Radio
October 3, 2007 — This was “Hosted by Developers”

I have found expenses for room rental for the musician and for Food and Beverages from Harborside Bistro, and in-kind contributions of food, catering, and Radio Museum-room rental.
Where is the information on the Bellwether Hotel (Expenses or In-kind contributions)
The invoice for Harborside Bistro was dated 10/2, although it was for the 9/18 event. The event took place in the Bistro, and there was no additional cost for “renting” the space. The space was included with the food and beverages.

and the fundraiser hosted by the developers (room, food in-kind or expenses). Can you designate which of the recorded in-kind contributions and the expenses is for what fundraiser?
The bill for the event on 10/13 came to a total of $3,200. The bill was split between 8 people as an in-kind donation, only one of which was a developer. The amounts were: Mischaikov $300, Barron $500, J. Swift $500, Thon $400, Fairbanks $250, Bradburn $250, Franklin $500, and L. Swift $500. Again, the space was included as part of the package for the catering.

I hope this answers all of the questions. Please let me know if you have any further questions, or need any more information. I can be reached by e-mail, or by phone.

Ken Bronstein
Treasurer, Committee to Elect Dan Pike for Mayor

I need a written explanation now, and then we can decide how to record what is determined.

Thank you,

Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission












Friday, May 23, 2008

From one of our Readers

I have also noticed a disturbing trend by the PDC to not interview critical witnesses. The PDC recently dismissed charges that Chad Minnick (the same political consultant who has been heavily involved with the Realtors PAC) concealed the true source of campaign contributions during his 2003 city council campaign. A citizen admitted to the PDC and the citizens of Monroe that he had been used as a straw donor to the campaigns of Minnick and another candidate in 2003.

The PDC found Minnick and the other candidate had both received an inordinate amount of cash--almost half of their campaign war chests--but did not issue or maintain any receipts for the thousands of dollars in cold, hard cash. They were unable to explain the circumstances of how a lot of this cash was delivered, and from whom. But the PDC didn't even bother to interview the treasurers!

Unbelievably, Chad Minnick, the POLITICAL CONSULTANT, claimed ignorance of the law requiring receipts for contributions over $50! This case was also handled in a "brief enforcement hearing", without the public being able to observe our PDC at work. And the agenda was not even posted until the morning of the hearing, as I recall. Brief enforcement hearings are not heard by the full commission, and are decided by one person--the Chairman. He fined Minnick $250, with most of it suspended. Such a trivial fine for multiple violations.

If campaigns want to avoid disclosing who is really giving the money, they ought to make sure they get it in cash--without receipts. The lack of a paper trail pays off. Now we see that the PDC did not bother to interview a critical witness in the Pike investigation. What is going on here? Why is the Public Disclosure Commission suddenly afraid of disclosure?

My faith in the PDC is Shattered

Please note that I had every intention of attending today's hearing, but yesterday, at 6 PM, I received a telephone call from Kurt Young, a PDC Compliance Officer, informing me that I would not be able to observe the hearings (Bornemann and Pike) nor would I be allowed to listen to the hearings on the telephone.

I have requested clarification regarding the PDC hearing process from the Governor's Office. I needed to attend the hearings in order to rebuild my faith and confidence in the PDC process.

A public office is a public trust that should be free from the danger of conflict of interest.”

The drafters of the Public Disclosure Act declare “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is good for them not to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments they have created.”

We all share the goal of ensuring that state and local government and political campaign reporting remain open, transparent and accountable to the people.

The Public Disclosure Commission has a duty to establish public confidence that each individual has the ability to access records needed to help him or her understand the source of ALL funds during an election. This right is codified in statute 42.17.010.(10): "The public's right to know of the financing of political campaigns and lobbying and the financial affairs of elected officials and candidates far outweighs any right that these matters remain secret and private."


I hope today’s PDC decision reflects the people’s desire that all elections are accountable, fair and transparent.

The Public Disclosure Commission was created by Initiative of the People to provide timely and meaningful public access to information about the financing of political campaigns.

I regret that the Public Disclosure Commission came under fire during this investigation, but PDC personnel have an obligation to remain impartial and not tip the balance of an investigation by attempting to stonewall citizens who are filing legitimate complaints under sunshine laws.

My faith in the Public Disclosure system was badly damaged by Randy Unruh's attempt to dismiss my complaint without fully investigating it, or allowing other staff members to review it, before he sent an e-mail to the Pike campaign stating that he was preparing a memo recommending dismissal of the complaint.

The fact that Mr. Pike would choose to release the e-mail to the media is reprehensible; and, in my opinion, demonstrates Mr. Pike's blatant lack of respect for public process and the rights of others to avail themselves of legal remedies provided by law.

I’m deeply saddened that my faith in the Public Disclosure Commission has been shattered by this experience.

_________________________________________________

In regards to Todd Donovan's complaint about the Realtors: The Realtor's Quality of Life PAC in-kind donations of $56,650 to three local candidates during the final phase of the election cycle raise important questions that I hope will be addressed during the PDC or the Attorney General's Office investigation.

1. When a potential major violation is revealed, does the PDC have the authority to issue a "stop order" to prevent a major violation from occuring? If not, who does?

2. If the PDC discovered that the RQL PAC donations were in fact in-kind contributions on October 19th, why didn't they inform candidates Pike and Crawford that they needed to report the donations within the time limit set by law?

3. Why wasn't the Pike campaign volunteer who coordinated the Realtor mailers with Chad Minnick interviewed during the investigation? Did Ms. Mookherjee call the PDC when she discovered the chain of e-mails between a campaign volunteer and Chad Minnick? Did she ask the volunteer about the work she/he was doing? I find it difficult to believe a campaign manager could be that out of touch with the day to day operations of a campaign.

4. What is the process for measuring the effects of illegal contributions on the outcome of an election? Does such a process exist? Does the PDC/AG office use it?

I sincerely hope the state will take steps to rebuild public confidence in the political process and government by addressing some of these issues.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the State of Washington set the standard in this nation regarding accountability and transparency in political campaigns.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Today is the Day - PDC Brief Hearing scheduled for Dan Pike

Dan Pike's first PDC hearing is scheduled today at the PDC Office located in the Evergreen Plaza Building in Olympia.

Other investigations are taking place in Washington D.C., (The Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding alleged charges for accepting foreign campaign contributions and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (regarding alleged charges for violating the federal Hatch Act).

I'm including a copy of the PDC's letter to Dan Pike regarding the details of the hearing and charges that the PDC have filed against him.

May 9 2008
PDC CASE NO 08-089 & 08-110
DAN PIKE
Personal information redacted for privacy


Presiding Officer: Bill Brumsickle, Chair. Public Disclosure Commission Authority brief Hearing: RCW 42.17.370 and RCW 42.17.395

The Public Disclosure Commission has scheduled a Brief Enforcement Hearing (Brief Adjudicative Proceeding) to determine if you violated: I) RCW 42.17.040 by failing to timely file a Candidate Registration Statement ( PDC form for your 2007 campaign for Mayor of Bellingham; 2) RCW 42.17.080 and .090 by failing to timely file Monetary Contribution Reports (PDC Form C—3) and Summary Contribution and Expenditure Receipts (PDC C-4) for your 2007 campaign: and 3) RCW 42.17 by using your office computer at the Skagit Council of Governments to send campaign-related e-mails that assisted your 2007 campaign.

Enclosed are copies of the Report of Investigation and Notice of Administrative Charges for a Brief Enforcement Hearing.

If you plan to he present at the hearing or he represented by legal counsel, please notify us in advance of the hearing date. If you do not plan to be present at the hearing, you may submit evidence in your own behalf or in mitigation. You may do so by writing to the Chair, Public Disclosure Commission. PO Box 40908. Olympia. WA 98504—0908. You may also participate by telephone conference. If that would he more convenient, please let me know.

You are not required by law to attend the hearing. However, the Public Disclosure Commission recommends that respondents participate by telephone or personally appear at hearings whenever possible. If you fail to attend or provide information in your own behalf, you may be in default and the Commission may assess appropriate penalties. Under the single commissioner hearing the Commission has the authority to assess penalties of up to $500 for violations.

I will be representing the staff of the Commission regarding this matter. If you have any
questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (360) 664-8854 or 1-877 -2828 (toll free or by e-mail).


Sincerely.

Kurt Young
PDC Compliance Officer

Enclosures
* Report of Investigation
* Notice of Administrative Charges for a Brief Enforcement Hearing.
* Brief Enforcement Hearing Brochure


____________________________________________________

BFFORE THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST DAN PIKE

PDC Case No, 08-089 & PDC Case No: 08-110
Brief Enforcement Hearing (Brief Adjudicative Proceeding)

I. JURISDICTION

The Commission has over this proceeding pursuant to Chapter 42.17 RCW. the Public Disclosure Act: Chapter 34M5 RCW. the Administrative Procedure Act and Title 390 WAC. These charges incorporate the Reports of Investigation and all of their exhibits by reference.

II. ALLEGATIONS

Dan Pike was the Transportation Director for Skagit Council of Governments and he was a first time candidate seeking election to the office of Mayor of Bellingham in 2007.

Dan Pike violated: 1) RCW 42.1 7.040 by failing to timely file a. Candidate Registration
Statement; 2) RCW 42.17.080 and .090 by failing to timely file Monetary Contribution Reports (PDC Form C-3) and Summary Contribution and Expenditure Reports (PDC Form C-4); and 3) RCW 42.17.130 by using his office computer at the Skagit Council of Governments to send campaign related e-mails that assisted his campaign for Bellingham Mayor.

III. FACTS SUPPORTING ALLEGATIONS

1. Dan Pike was a candidate for Mayor of Bellingham in 2007. He filed a Candidate Registration Statement (PDC form C-1 on January 25, 2007.

2. Mr. Pike selected the Full Reporting option on the C-1 indicating he would file frequent and detailed reports of contribution and expenditure activities that were required to he filed under that option.

3. During 2007, Mr. Pike served as Transportation Director for Skagit County Council of Govoernments a local public agency in Skagit County that is a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) .An RTPO is public agency enabled under RCW 47.80 that receives state finding and is charged with transportation planning such as developing long—range transportation plans, coordinating the work of local government agencies within their region, and the preparation of transportation improvement programs.

Failure to File Candidate Registration Statement: RCW 42.17.030

4. Candidates are required to register with the Public Disclosure Commission within two weeks of soliciting or accepting contributions, making expenditures to support their candidacy, or making a public announcement, whichever occurs first.

5. At the latest. Mr. Pike became a candidate on December 8. 2006 when he printed a campaign brochure and distributed it at a Whatcom County Democratic Party event. The political advertisement stated: “Pike for Mayor, Working Together for a Better Bellingham,” and “My name is Dan Pike, and I ask for your support.”

6. Dan Pike filed his C-1 on January 25. 2007, declaring his candidacy for Mayor of Bellingham, 34 days late. Mr. Pike was required to file his C-1 on or before December 22. 2006. after incurring expenditures in early December 2006 for a political advertising.

Failure to timely file Monetary Contribution Reports (Form C-3) and Contribution and Expenditure Reports (form C-4) (RCW 42.17.080 & 090):

7. Dan Pike filed C—3 and C-4 reports between 10 and 210 day’s late disclosing $5,889 in contributions and $10,679 in expenditures as detailed in Exhibit #1.

8. The 5,589 in monetary and in-kind contributions was disclosed on reports between 10 and 210 days late and represented 7% of total contributions received by Mr. Pike’s campaign. The $10,679 in monetary and in-kind expenditures was disclosed between 10 and 210 days late and represented 13% of Mr. Pike’s expenditures activity during the 2007 primary and general election campaigns.

9. All of Mr. Pike’s contribution and expenditure activities were reported before the 2007 general election, However, $1,349 in contributions and $4,151 in expenditures was required to be disclosed by Mr. Pike before the 2007 primary election, but those activities’ were not disclosed until after the primary election was held.

Use of Skagit Council of Government facilities to Assist his Candidacy: (RCW 42.17.130).


10. On February 20. 2007 Dan Pike forwarded to his campaign e-mail account an e-mail originally sent to his Skagit Council of Governments (SCOG) e-mail account, containing a brief reference to his campaign.

11. On February 26. 2007, Mr. Pike sent two e-mails from his SCOG e-mail account to his campaign e-mail account, with attached files that contained graphics for campaign materials.

12. On April 24, 2007. Mr. Pike sent an e-mail from his SCOG e-mail account to his campaign e-mail account, with an attached file containing questions and answers ‘to be used at a campaign forum for mayoral candidates.

13. On July 19. 2007. Mr. Pike sent an e-mail from his’ SCOG e account to Bobbi Krebs- McMullen in response to an e-mail he received from her on July 11, 2007. He then e-mailed her again on August 22, 2007, providing a link to a campaign article in the Bellingham Herald, ‘The exchange between Mr. Pike and Ms. Krebs-McMullen consisted almost entirely of a discussion of Mr. Pike s campaign and his prospects for election.

IV. RELEVANT LAW

RCW 42.17.040 requires candidates to register with the Public Disclosure Commission and the county elections officer within two weeks of becoming a candidate.

RCW 42.17.080 and 090 require candidates to file timely, accurate reports of contributions and expenditures including in-kind contributions. During the five months before the general election, summary reports of receipts and expenditures to he filed 21 days and again 7 clays, before each election in which the candidate will appear on the ballot. A post-election summary report is due on the 10th of the month following each election. Contribution deposits made during this same time period must he disclosed on the Monday following the date of deposit.

R.CW 42.17.130 states, in part: “No elective official, nor any employee of his office nor any person appointed or employed by any public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of May. 2008

Kurt Young
PDC Compliance Officer
Notice of Administrative Charges Exhibits
Exhibit #1 Chart detailing lack of timeliness in filing C-3 and C-4 reports for 2007 Dan Pike



40th Legislative District Extends Membership Deadline Due to National Holiday

40TH Legislative District extends period for joining to Tuesday, May 27 due to national holiday so that more people have the chance to join the 40th Legislative District in time to participate in the upcoming endorsement meetings which will determine which two of five Democrats who are running for Senator Spanel's seat are endorsed by the 40th Legislative District. The endorsement meetings are June 7 through 10 listed below.

LOPEZ: June 7, 10 am, Library
ORCAS: June 7, 2 pm, Fire Hall
SAN JUAN: June 8, 4 pm, Senior Center
SKAGIT: June 9, 6 pm, PUD, 1450 Freeway Drive,
Mt VernonWHATCOM: June 10, 6 pm, Bloedel Donovan, 2214 Electric Street, Bellingham.

40th L.D. membership applications can be downloaded from wa40dems.net, picked up at county Democratic offices, or from the following county liaisons: Whatcom: Roni Beall (360-756-1405), Skagit: Erna Berghuys (360-840-7515), San Juan: Ruth Fleming (360-378-5462).Applications must be turned in or postmarked by Tuesday, May 27. Mail 40th LD Democrats, % Whatcom County Democrats, PO Box 3095, Bellingham, WA 98225 ; or email to
roni.beall@gmail.com with a copy to cathecham@msn.com (available at our website).

40th Legislative District Democrats Nominate Kevin Ranker - Revised Results

The 40th Legislative District Democrats kicked off their campaign season with a nominating convention Sunday, May 18th at the Anacortes library. The precinct committee officers met to nominate a candidate to fill the senate seat being vacated by Harriet Spanel.

"There has been an air of pent up excitement and excellent candidates have come forward" said Tom Pasma, chair of the 40th Legislative District. "This is the first opening we've had in the district in more than a decade".

Five Democratic candidates were in the race at Sunday's convention and several rounds of voting were expected. After each candidate was questioned individually, the first vote was taken and a strong margin of victory brought the process to a speedy resolution.

Using weighted voting based on the last presidential campaign, and after verifying that all ballots were signed, the final results from 436 weighted ballots yielded the following results: San Juan County Council Member Kevin Ranker received 242 votes for a total of 55%. Three candidates split the remaining 45% of the votes. The runner up was long-time Whatcom County Democratic party activist, Hue Beattie who received 94 weighted votes (22%). Third was Whatcom County Ken Henderson with who received 66 weighted votes (15%), followed by Stephanie Kountourous, also of Whatcom County who received 34 votes (8%). Paul Gonzales of Skagit County received no votes.

In accepting the nomination, Ranker said, "This nomination is a great affirmation of the momentum my campaign is building and my long time commitment to the Democratic Party. I am honored to have this nomination."

The local party has worked to create as open a process as possible that allows Democrats in the 40th Legislative District an opportunity to weigh in and select candidates who hope to be on the primary and general ballots. Following the recent Supreme Court decision that limits the names on the general ballot in November to the "top two" vote getters, the party has conducted a half dozen candidate forums. Additional meetings are being scheduled and the once crowded field is expected to narrow further by June 12th, the last day to formally withdraw so candidates' who have decided not to continue will not have their names on the primary ballot.

Tom Pasma, chair of the 40th Legislative District Democrats, and co-chairs from each county are scheduling endorsement meetings that will be held between June 7 and June 11.

To participate in the endorsement meetings, Democratic voters need to join the 40th Legislative District by May 26.

Application forms can be downloaded from
http://www.wa40dems.net/ or picked up at county Democratic headquarters. The cost for individual memberships is $10 and $20 for families, but can be reduced or waived for hardship.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Pike's Testimony During PDC Investigation

Excerpted from first PDC Report of Investigation of PDC Case NO: 08-102 and PDC Case NO: 08-103,beginning on page 11 -(the report was recently removed from the PDC site and Todd Donovan, the complaint filer was notified that the PDC is continuing the investigation). The hearing will be rescheduled for June or July.

On May 15, 2008, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission issued a Staff Report to the PDC Commission with a recommendation that the Commissioners report the following apparent violations of the Realtors Quality of Life PAC to the Attorney General's Office.

Despite testimony from Chad Minnick, a campaign consultant for the Realtors, advising Ms. Whiting of the Realtors that there was too much coordination between himself and the campaigns to change the mailers to Independent Expenditures, the Realtors went ahead and mailed the pieces, violating Washington's 21 day $5,000 contribution limit before the General Election. The Realtors donated $19, 038 for Mr. Pike and $12,874 for Sam Crawford. These were local races and the Realtors in-kind dontations represent a significant percentage of each candidate's total campaign donations.

PDC staff recommended that the Commission dismiss the allegations against Dan Pike. "Dismissal is appropriate because the Pike Campaign attempted to avoid coordinating its activities with the Realtors and RQL PAC and believed the expenditures to be independent expenditures. In addition, the Pike campaign did not report receipt of an in-kind contribution for the mailings based on advice it received from PDC staff." But the three mailers were almost mirror images of the mailers sent out by the Pike campaign, which indicates that there was significant coordination between the Realtors and the Pike campaign.

On October 19th, the PDC contacted Ms. Whiting from the Realtors Association and were told that the in-kind contributions were reported to the candidates on October 16th, one day after the 21 day $5,000 contribution limit went in to effect. But the PDC did not attempt to stop the Realtors from mailing the campaign mailers, nor were the Realtors willing to voluntarily reduce the size of the mailings to conform with Washington Campaign laws. The mailers were mailed, despite the Realtors acknowledgement that they were way over the $5,000 limit, and two candidates, Dan Pike and Sam Crawford recieved thousands of dollars of illegal support during the last two weeks of the campaign. Neither man was charged.

Here is the testimony from Mr. Pike and his campaign manager, Sati Mookherjee, who later admits in her testimony that a campaign staff person had been working closely with Chad Minnick on the mailers, unbeknownst to Mr. Pike or herself.

3.54 Mr. Pike stated that he had no contact with anyone from the Realtors (local or state) or either of the vendors regarding any mailings they were sponsoring regarding his campaign. He stated that his campaign manager informed him that the Realtors requested photos, and stated, "Which wasn't unusual for people to ask for that. There were different groups that endorsed me that wanted images. If anybody wanted images to promote me that was fine. So we didn't even ask about why people would ask for those, we just assumed, obviously, they were aligning with us and wanted to have some images to help my candidacy." Mr. Pike stated that he did not personally provide or have any contact with the Realtors in providing images.

3.55 Mr. Pike stated that he first learned that the Realtors were doing a mailing on the day the mailer arrived in his home mailbox.

3.56 Mr. Pike had no contact with PDC staff regarding the Realtors expenditures on behalf of his campaign.

3.57 Dan Pike's campaign manager, Shati Mookherjee, stated during her interview with PDC staff that Mr. Eskridge (Whatcom Association of Realtors) contacted her and requested photos. She stated that at that point, the campaign didn't have many pictures, so she sent him what she had. Mr. Eskridge contacted her again because he needed better images (higher resolution), so she directed him to a campaign volunteer who better understood computer images. She stated they had no further discussion at that point and she was not aware of what Mr. Eskridge would use the photos for.

3.58 Ms. Mookherjee stated that her next contact with the Realtors was when Mr. Eskridge called her to inform her that he had some "papers you guys need to file." She stated that she had a campaign volunteer retrieve them from Mr. Eskridge. She stated that a few days later, the treasurer, Ken Bronstein, contacted her seeking direction on reporting the content of the invoices. She stated that neither she nor Mr. Bronstein understood what the invoices were for and decided to contact PDC staff for help.

3.59 PDC staff records show that staff spoke with Ms. Mookherjee on October 18th regarding the invoices. Ms. Mookherjee stated that she told PDC staff, "I don't understand what these are or how to file them... Perry asked me for pictures several weeks ago, which I sent him but I never asked what they were for, he never used the word mailer."

3.60 After further discussion with PDC staff, Ms. Mookherjee stated that she believed that she had been advised, by PDC staff, that this was an independent expenditure and the Pike campaign did not have an obligation to report the expenditures.

3.61 Ms. Mookherjee stated that once she completed her contact with PDC staff, she believed the matter involving the Realtor expenditures (invoices) had been resolved because the invoices were referencing to an independent expenditure sponsored by the Realtors. She stated that she believed the mailer had already been delivered and that she had never seen it.

3.62 Ms. Mookherjee stated that several days after her contact with PDC staff, as she was reading old e-mails (e-mails she had received during the campaign but had not been able to read right away), she found an e-mail string between a campaign staffer and Chad Minnick (Realtor Campaign Consultant). She stated that she had been copied on the e-mail and not previously reviewed it. She stated that in the e-mail Mr. Minnick was requesting photos from the staff person and he referenced a plan to spend $12,000 on a mailer. Ms. Mookherjee stated that, at that point, she thought the e-mail string was regarding a new or additional project that the Realtors were also sponsoring. She did not understand that the project described in the e-mail string was the project referenced on the invoices received from Realtors Quality of Life PAC. She stated, "I thought there was some internal confusion. I thought, whatever had happened, had already happened two weeks ago and I was glad that I had never seen or heard of those mailers. I thought it was over, I thought it was moot."

3.63 Mr. Pike and Ms. Mookherjee both stated in their interviews with PDC staff that the Realtor sponsored mailers had no impact on the Pike campaign's mail plan. Ms. Mookherjee stated that their advertising plan had already been created by the time they realized what the Realtors were doing. Mr. Pike stated that he was closely involved in his own campaign's mailing plan, stating, "I was involved to the extent that the pieces all got vetted through me before they would be sent out. I was pretty involved all the way through."

3.64 Mr Pike and Ms. Mookherjee both stated, during their interviews, that the first time they saw the mailers was when they arrived at their respective residences.

Realtors Quality of Life Over-limit In-Kind Contribution

3.71 PDC staff contacted Ms. Whiting (Realtors) on October 19 and November 2, 2007 regarding the nature of the expenditures, attempting to determine whether it was an in-kind contribution or an independent expenditure. Ms. Whiting advised PDC staff that the mailers were in-kind contributions and stated that the candidates received the notification one day late, on October 16th.

3.72 During her interview, Ms. Whiting stated that after she was contacted by the PDC staff regarding whether the mailers were in-kind or independent expenditure, she asked Mr. Minnick if the mailers could be changed to independent expenditures.

She (Ms. Whiting) stated that Mr. Minnick advised her that there had been too much coordination between himself and the campaigns, so the mailers had to remain as in-kind contributions.
She also stated that the mailers had already been printed and did not contain the proper independent expenditure sponsor identification language (top five contributors, etc).

3.73 Ms. Whiting and Mr. Wahl (Realtors) both stated, during their interviews, that there was no internal discussion regarding reducing the number of mailers to qualify the expenditures as in-kind contributions within the limits imposed during the 21 day limitation period (i.e. send out $5,000 worth of the mailers instead of the entire amount).

3.74 In response to PDC staff's request for a written explanation, Ms. Whiting provided a series of e-mails between herself and Mr. Eskridge (Whatcom Association of Realtors) in an attempt to explain their internal confusion about the projects. In an October 25, 2007 e-mail to Perry Eskridge, Ms. Whiting appears to have had some level of understanding that the candidates did not receive notification in time for the expenditures to qualify as an in-kind contribution not subject to limit.
(See Exhibit 15).

3.75 During the investigative interviews, PDC staff asked Ms. Whiting and Mr. Wahl to sum up the situation concerning Realtors Quality of Life PAC expenditures.

3.76 In her summary, Ms. Whiting stated that the mailers were in-kind contributions but, she stated, "Apparently that was not the understanding of Perry (Eskridge) or the campaigns. And so they didn't communicate the fact that they were uncomfortable to me, at least, because that would have been a red flag that maybe they don't know what's going on here."

3.77 Ms. Whiting further concluded by stating, "I think the glitch is miscommunication between myself and Perry...it wasn't anything anyone did on purpose. We really wanted to keep everything out in the open... we just sort of dropped the ball in communicating this properly to the candidates."

PDC pulls Staff Report Recommending PDC Commissioners forward Quality of Life PAC Complaint to Attorney General's Office

Breaking News --

The Public Disclosure Commission has pulled a Staff Report recommending that PDC Commissioners forward the Realtors Quality of Life PAC Complaint to the Attorney General's Office.

The report was posted on the PDC website on May 15th. It was removed from the website this morning.

The PDC will reschedule the hearing in June or July.

Monday, May 19, 2008

40th Legislative District invites participants to join in Endorsement Process

Press Release May 19, 2008

For immediate release:
Contact: Tom Pasma Chair 40th Legislative District Democrats 360-661-4885

40th Legislative District Democrats Nominate Kevin Ranker

The 40th Legislative District Democrats kicked off their campaign season with a nominating convention Sunday, May 18th at the Anacortes library. The precinct committee officers met to nominate a candidate to fill the senate seat vacated by Harriet Spanel.

"There has been an air of pent up excitement and excellent candidates have come forward" said Tom Pasma, chair of the 40th Legislative District. "This is the first opening we've had in the district in more than a decade".

Five Democratic candidates were in the race at Sunday's convention and several rounds of voting were expected. After each candidate was questioned individually, the first vote was taken and a strong margin of victory brought the process to a speedy resolution.

In weighted voting based on the last presidential campaign, San Juan County Council Member Kevin Ranker received 260 votes or 54% of the total. Three candidates split the remaining 46% of the votes. The runner up was long-time Whatcom County Democratic party activist, Hue Beattie with 94 weighted votes. Third was Whatcom County Ken Henderson with 78 votes followed by Stephanie Kountourous, also of Whatcom County at 48 votes. Paul Gonzales of Skagit County received no votes.

In accepting the nomination, Ranker said, "This nomination is a great affirmation of the momentum my campaign is building and my long time commitment to the Democratic Party. I am honored to have this nomination."

The local party has worked to create as open a process as possible that allows Democrats in the 40th Legislative District an opportunity to weigh in and select candidates who hope to be on the primary and general ballots. Following the recent Supreme Court decision that limits the names on the general ballot in November to the "top two" vote getters, the party has conducted a half dozen candidate forums. Additional meetings are being scheduled and the once crowded field is expected to narrow further by June 12th, the last day to formally withdraw so candidates' who have decided not to continue will not have their names on the primary ballot.

Tom Pasma, chair of the 40th Legislative District Democrats, and co-chairs from each county are scheduling endorsement meetings that will be held between June 7 and June 11.

To participate in the endorsement meetings, Democratic voters need to join the 40th Legislative District by May 26.

Application forms can be downloaded from
http://www.wa40dems.net/ or picked up at county Democratic headquarters. The cost for individual memberships is $10 and $20 for families, but can be reduced or waived for hardship.
40th LD Democrats Give Official Nod to Quall and Morris
40th Legislative District incumbent State Representatives Dave Quall and Jeff Morris received the official nomination to run as the official Democratic nominees for the 40th Legislative District in their upcoming State House races. Both received nomination by unanimous acclaim on Sunday, May 18 at the 40th LD Nominating Convention in Anacortes.

It's Time to Clean House at the PDC

On November 16, 2007, Todd Donovan filed a complaint with the PDC alleging that Pike’s Realtor mailings qualified as in-kind contributions as opposed to independent expenditures.

Donvoan's complaint states that the mailers appear to have been carefully coordinated with the Pike campaign based on strong similarities with regards to graphics, colors, logos, and themes. The Realtor’s pieces also appear to lack the proper sponsor identification wording specifically required for independent expenditures.

A May 15th PDC staff report states that the Realtor’s Quality of Life PAC spent $46,650.47 for seven district mailers that were in-kind contributions supporting Crawford ($12,874.60), Pike ($19,038.23), and Farr, ($14,737.64). Only Larry Farr reported the in-kind contributions, as directed by the Realtors. (Let’s give a gold star to Larry Farr for honesty and integrity - he reported the in-kind donation promptly).

Candidate’s Crawford and Pike did not report receiving in-kind contributions in the amount of $12,874 and $19,038.23 respectively. Both the Crawford and Pike campaigns said they believed the mailings to be independent expenditures and therefore have not reported receiving any in-kind contributions for RQL PAC.

Phil Stutzman’s staff report to the Commission recommends that the Commission dismiss the allegations against Dan Pike. Stutzman feels dismissal is appropriate because the Pike campaign attempted to avoid coordinating its activities with the Realtors and believed it’s the expenditures to be independent expenditures, based on conversations with PDC employees.

Mr. Crawford reports a similar experience with the PDC.

I find it deeply troubling that a Washington State Public Disclosure Commission employee mislead candidates into thinking in-kind contributions are not – in fact – in-kind contributions.

After all, the Public Disclosure Commission is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that Washington Candidates and political organizations obey Washington’s campaign finance laws.

I’m not a suspicious person by nature, but I must admit, now that I have had an opportunity to review the Stutzman report, I question the PDCs impartiality in the Pike Campaign.

Why? I get that yucky, sinking feeling everytime I read the series of e-mail exchanged between Dan Pike, Pike’s campaign treasurer, Ken Bronstein, and Randy Unruh, the PDC Political Finance Specialist for the Pike and McShane Campaigns.

In an e-mail dated July 19, 2007, Unruh writes Dan Pike to inform him that he has been assigned to monitor his campaign, and hopefully keep on top of any problems before they turn into complaints. His e-mail reads, “I have been assigned to monitor the candidates running for Mayor of Bellingham. I have reviewed your reports that have been submitted to the PDC. Below is a list of errors that need to be addressed immediately”. Unruh closes the e-mail with a warning to Mr. Pike –“You are in a hotly contested race and I am sure your financing will be looked at. If someone were to complain prior to you correcting these errors it may lead to an investigation and possible enforcement, which we are trying to avoid.”

O.k. I understand and appreciate that the PDC needs to be involved in monitoring campaign activity - so the above statement doesn't raise any red flags - but, on October 31, 2007, Unruh sent an e-mail to Ken Bronstein. “The PDC has received a formal complaint from Elisabeth Britt concerning the Dan Pike Campaign. The Complaint is in a fact finding phase and may not be logged in. I have been able to dispel most of the complaint, but need some information on the remainder. Ms. Britt states that the Pike Campaign has three fundraising events recently:
September 18, 2007 – at the Bellwether Hotel
September 29, 2007 – at the American Museum of Radio
October 3, 2007 – This was “hosted by Developers”

I have found expenses for room rental for the musician and for Food and Beverages from the Harborside Bistro, and in-kind contributions of food, catering and Radio Museum room rental.
Where is the information on the Bellwether Hotel (Expenses or In-kind contributions) and the fundraiser hosted by the developers (room, food, in-kind expenses)? Can you designate which of the recorded in-kind contributions and the expenses is for what fundraiser
?

I need a written explanation now, and then we can decide how to record what is determined.”


The above correspondence raises a question regarding the PDCs neutrality in regulating campaigns. First, Unruh warns the candidate that he has significant errors that need to be addressed or it is likely a complaint will be filed. Then, when a complaint is filed, Unruh writes that he is doing everything in his power to dispel the complaint, even though he can not find the information he needs to dismiss it... then, out of the blue, he announces he is preparing a "will not investigate memo now." without fully investigating the complaint. Pike leaks the e-mail to the media, claiming that the PDC has told him investiation into funds is over -but nothing could have been further from the truth.

Pike's alleged state and federal campaign violations raise a number of questions that no one wants to address: For instance, how do we measure the negative impact of a large infusion of illegal campaign funds on the outcome of an election? Should an investigation be opened to determine if the illegal donations resulted in a skewed election? What steps should the PDC take when a candidate calls the office to reveal that significant amounts of cash are about to be spent by a PAC during the last 21 days of an election? Should the PDC employee in question have notified his superiors so they could investigate the alleged in-kind contributions and issue a stop order to prevent the Realtors from sending out mailers that violated the $5000 dollar limit during the final 21 days before the general election?

What recourse do law abiding citizens and candidates have under these circumstances? Does any one care if elections are fair?

Do candidates have an obligation to verify information with a supporter? Does the PDC? Or, do we rely on private citizens, like Todd Donovan to report alleged violations?

Pike’s PDC reports only list $700 in contributions from the Realtors, when in reality Pike received $19, 038 in-kind donations from the realtors and an undisclosed amount in additional Independent Expenditures from the Realtors for additional support.

According to Pike’s C-4 from October 30, 2007, the Pike campaign had only raised $46,833.24. Therefore it is not a stretch for me to state that a last minute infusion of $20,000 (approximately $14,o38 after subtracting the $5,000 limit) plus dollars into the campaign provided Mr. Pike a significant illegal advantage over his opponent.

Sam Crawford reported raising $20,458.24 in his October 30, 2007 C-4. So an additional $12,874 ($7,874 after subtracting the $5,000 limit) probably gave Mr. Crawford an illegal advantage over his opponent as well. The Realtors also paid for T.V. ads for Mr. Crawford.

Clearly, organizations like the Realtors think that they are buying something when they make huge cash donations to candidates – which leads me to ask, what exactly is for sale? What is it that PACs demand and politicians like Crawford and Pike supply? After all, identifying the “product” in the political marketplace is the first step in making informed decisions. (I can understand why the Whatcom County Realtors would be involved, but why the state chapter)?

You may not personally like Dan McShane or Ken Mann, but when did not liking someone justify breaking the law to win an election? Tell me, at the end of the day, who is responsible for illegal campaign spending? The candidate, the donor, or the PDC Officer who allegedly gave the candidate and/or his staff erroneous legal advice? (How about all of the above).

If Dan Pike’s past behavior is any indication of his future behavior, he will finger point, stomp around in another self-important huff and blame everyone else for his campaign troubles. Too bad Bret Bonner isn’t around to rant and rave about how his good friend Dan Pike is being railroaded by bitter, angry McShane supporters...

As an incumbent, Whatcom County Council member Sam Crawford should have known better and had nothing to lose by reporting the Realtor's in-kind donations. Most Crawford supporters expect that Crawford receives significant Realtor support. All he had to do is ask the Realtors to provide him a copy of the mailer - that would have answered any questions he or his campaign staff had regarding the donation (in-kind or Independent Expenditure)?

Me? I think it’s time to clean house at the Public Disclosure Commission. Political Finance Officers have an obligation to provide accurate, timely information to candidates. Especially beginner candidates. If an employee provides erroneous information, he/she should be held accountable. Especially when large sums of money are involved and the outcome of an election is at stake.

In closing, I would like to urge the legislature to draft legislation that allows the Attorney General to remove elected officials from office when campaign violations become so pronounced that they have the ability to adversely affect the outcome of an election. Of course, the legislature will never draft that legislation, so it will be up to the citizens to write an initiative if they want to ensure that elections are in fact, open, honest and transparent.

If we don’t take steps to address the problem, Washington voters will be left at the mercy of PACs flush with cash who find it more expedient to pay court-ordered fines than obey the campaign finance laws of this state.

Kevin Ranker walks away with 40th Legislative District Democrats Nomination for State Senate

For Immediate Release: Monday May 19, 2008
Contact: Jason Heck (360)220-5914
www.KevinRanker.com

40th Legislative District Democrats Nominate Kevin Ranker for State Senate

Kevin Ranker’s campaign continues to gain momentum with the nomination, sustained fundraising and additional endorsements.

Anacortes—On Sunday, Democratic precinct committee officers from all corners of the 40th Legislative District met in Anacortes to nominate their candidates for Washington State Senate. The nomination, a first step in the new "top two" primary system, represents the first in a string of contests intended to whittle down the field of five democrats vying for the State Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Harriet Spanel.

A simple majority was required to win the nomination, and multiple ballots were prepared in advance. However, only one round of voting was necessary as Kevin Ranker took 54% of the vote in the five-way race with 260 votes. The next closest candidates had 94 and 78 votes respectively.

"This is a great position to be in, but there is much more work ahead to sustain this momentum," said Ranker, a San Juan County Council member and longtime community leader in the region. "This victory proves that our campaign is strong and headed in the right directions. I’m grateful for the nomination of fellow Democrats." The next hurdle will be the endorsement elections which are set to be held in different locations between June 7th-June 11th in advance of the final withdrawal date for candidates.

This victory capped an extraordinary week in which Ranker also received endorsements from King County Executive Ron Sims, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Chair Billy Frank Jr., Anacortes Conservation Voters, Whatcom Conservation Voters, Washington Conservation Voters, Ocean Champions Voter Fund, and the San Juan County Democrats.

"This victory does not belong to me," said Ranker, "this victory belongs to all those who have chosen to believe in my ability to run a strong campaign, and represent them well in Olympia. I wish to thank each and every one of them for their support."




Saturday, May 17, 2008

Realtors PAC fails to report $56,650 in contributions to Crawford, Pike and Farr

This Report was pulled from the PDC website on May 21, 2008. It is my understanding that the hearing will be rescheduled later in the summer.

The two in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike totaled $31,913, and exceeded the maximum contributions allowed by RCW 42.17.105(8) within 21 days of the 2007 general election by $21,913.

Here's where it gets interesting --- On October 16, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC notified the Crawford campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $12,875. On or after October 16, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Pike campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $19,038. Farr reported the in-kind contribution, as required by law, Pike alleges that his campaign contacted the PDC and was told he did not have to report the in-kind contribution ---

PDC Report to Commission with Recommendation to report the following apparent violations of the Realtor's Quality of Life PAC to the Attorney General

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION
711 Capitol Way Rm. 206, PO Box 40908 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0908 • (360) 753-1111 • FAX (360) 753-1112 Toll Free 1-877-601-2828 • E-mail: pdc@pdc.wa.gov • Website: www.pdc.wa.gov

TO: Members, Public Disclosure Commission

FROM: Philip E. Stutzman, Director of Compliance

DATE: May 15, 2008

SUBJECT: Report to Commission with Recommendation
Complaint filed against Realtors Quality of Life PAC (PDC Case No. 08-103)
Complaint filed against Dan Pike (PDC Case No. 08-102)

On November 16, 2007, Commission staff received a complaint from Todd Donovan alleging that during the week before the 2007 General election, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC (RQL PAC) distributed three direct mail pieces supporting Dan Pike, a candidate for Mayor of Bellingham, and that the expenditures had not been reported by RQL PAC or by Mr. Pike’s campaign. Mr. Donovan alleged that the RQL PAC mailings appeared to have been coordinated with the Pike campaign, and were unreported in-kind contributions. Although not addressed in Mr. Donovan’s complaint, PDC staff also reviewed whether the Realtors Quality of Life PAC properly reported expenditures it made that supported Sam Crawford, an incumbent candidate for Whatcom County Council, and Larry Farr, a candidate for Bellingham City Council.

The investigation showed that the Realtors Quality of Life PAC (a political committee of the Washington Association of Realtors) violated RCW 42.17 on multiple occasions. The investigation also showed that Dan Pike did not violate RCW 42.17 in a manner that would warrant enforcement action. Following is a summary of staff’s investigation and the justification for the staff recommendations.

Background
1. The 2007 General Election was held on November 6, 2007. Within 21 days of a general election, persons (including associations, entities, and political committees) are prohibited from making contributions in the aggregate exceeding $5,000 to any candidate or political committee (RCW 42.17.105[8]). Beginning October 16, 2007, contributions to local office candidates, unless made by a state party committee, were limited to $5,000 in the aggregate.
2. Within 21 days of an election, the sponsor of political advertising who publishes, mails, or otherwise presents to the public political advertising supporting or opposing a candidate or Report to Commission With Recommendation Realtors Quality of Life
ballot proposition that qualifies as an independent expenditure with a fair market value of $1,000 or more is required to file a special report with the Commission (PDC form C-6) within 24 hours of the date the advertising is first published, mailed, or otherwise presented to the public (RCW 42.17.103).
3. The Washington Association of Realtors (Washington Realtors or Realtors) is located in Olympia, Washington and controls the Realtors Quality of Life PAC. Bryan Wahl is Government Affairs Director and Kate Whiting is Political Affairs Director for the Washington Realtors. Together, they managed the campaign expenditure projects sponsored by RQL PAC during the 2007 election. Perry Eskridge is the Government Affairs Director for the local Whatcom County Association of Realtors. He worked with Ms. Whiting to coordinate the production and distribution of the mailers that supported candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr.
4. During the 2007 General Election, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC spent $56,650 supporting candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr. The Realtors and RQL PAC provided support in the form of public endorsements, monetary contributions, and political advertising (mailers and a TV ad).

Investigation
Realtors Quality of Life PAC fails to itemize in-kind contribution expenditures totaling $46,650, benefitting three candidates, on the Schedule A to the C-4 Report (RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037)

5. RQL PAC spent $46,650 on seven direct mail political advertising pieces supporting Crawford, Pike, and Farr. The support was an in-kind contribution to each candidate - $12,874 for Crawford, $19,038 for Pike, and $14,738 for Farr. The mailers were delivered to voters during the week of October 29 to November 2, 2007. Mr. Wahl and Ms. Whiting of the Realtors and the Realtors Quality of Life PAC, and Chad Minnick of Minnick & Minnick Consulting, all agreed that the expenditures were in-kind contributions to the candidates supported.
6. RQL PAC timely filed its 7-day pre-general election C-4 report on October 30, 2007, but did not identify, on the Schedule A to the C-4 report, the candidates supported by the political advertising. In addition, the filing did not provide the required itemization of costs attributable to each mailer as required by RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037. RQL PAC amended its C-4 and Schedule A to provide the required itemization of expenditures 156 days late on April 3, 2008, well after the 2007 general election.

Realtors Quality of Life PAC makes contributions in excess of $5,000 to two candidates within 21 Days of 2007 General Election (RCW 42.17.105[8])
7. The last day for making unlimited contributions to local candidates for the 2007 General election was October 15, 2007. Beginning on October 16, monetary and in-kind contributions were limited to $5,000 in the aggregate for each candidate.
Report to Commission With Recommendation Realtors Quality of Life PAC, Case No. 08-103 & Dan Pike, Case No. 08-102
8. On October 15, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC began the process of notifying candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr of in-kind contributions totaling $46,650. On October 15, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Larry Farr campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $14,737 to the Farr campaign.
9. On October 16, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC notified the Crawford campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $12,875. On or after October 16, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Pike campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $19,038. Because RQL PAC did not notify candidates Crawford and Pike of the in-kind contributions until after October 15, 2007, the maximum allowable contribution to each candidate was $5,000. The two in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike totaled $31,913, and exceeded the maximum contributions allowed by RCW 42.17.105(8) within 21 days of the 2007 general election by $21,913.
10. Shortly after October 16, 2007, the Washington Realtors and RQL PAC became aware that they had not timely notified candidates Crawford and Pike. Distribution of the mailers did not start until October 29 and was completed by November 2, 2007. However, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC did not cancel or reduce the size of the mailings to ensure that the value of the in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike would be limited to $5,000 to each candidate.


Realtors Quality of Life PAC fails to file a C-6 Report of Independent Expenditures that supported a candidate for Whatcom County Council (RCW 42.17.103)
11. The Realtors Quality of Life PAC spent $10,000 for an independent expenditure television advertisement supporting Sam Crawford. RQL PAC first presented the TV ad to the public on October 31, 2007. RQL PAC timely reported the ad on its 7-day pre-general election C-4 report. However, the Schedule A to the C-4 report did not adequately describe the purpose of the committee’s expenditure. RQL PAC did not file the required special report (PDC form C-6) within 24 hours of presenting the advertising to the public as required by RCW 42.17.103. RQL PAC filed the C-6 report 154 days late on April 3, 2008, well after the 2007 general election.
Alleged failure of Dan Pike to report receipt of in-kind contribution from Realtors Quality of Life PAC (RCW 42.17.080 and .090)
12. Dan Pike did not report receiving an in-kind contribution from the Realtors Quality of Life PAC in the amount of $19,038. The Pike campaign said they believed the mailing to be an independent expenditure made by RQL PAC, and not an in-kind contribution.
13. During the campaign, Mr. Eskridge contacted Mr. Pike’s campaign manager and requested digital images. The campaign manager provided the images, and when additional, high resolution images were requested, the campaign manager delegated the duty to a campaign volunteer who provided the images to Mr. Eskridge. On or shortly after October 16, 2007, at the request of Ms. Whiting, Mr. Eskridge gave the Pike campaign copies of invoices from the consultant used by RQL PAC for the mailers, to enable the Pike campaign to report the cost of the mailings as an in-kind contribution.
14. The Pike campaign was unsure of the purpose of the invoices or how to report the
information, so Mr. Pike’s campaign manager contacted PDC staff. Based on the campaign manager’s description of the campaign’s contact with the Realtors and the consultant, PDC staff told the Pike campaign that the expenditure appeared to be an independent expenditure and might not be reportable by the Pike campaign. Based on this discussion with PDC staff, the Pike campaign did not report the expenditures as an in-kind contribution.
15. Mr. Pike stated that he did not personally provide information or have contact with anyone from the Realtors (at the local or state level) or with either of the vendors regarding the mailings sponsored by RQL PAC in support of his campaign. He stated that his campaign manager informed him that the Realtors had requested photos, as had many of his other supporters. He said that by itself, the Realtors’ request did not give him any information about the Realtors’ plan to support his campaign.
16. Mr. Pike and his campaign manager stated that the Realtor-sponsored mailers had no impact on the campaign’s mail plan. The campaign manager stated that the campaign’s advertising plan was already being executed when they learned that the Realtors were conducting mailings in support of the campaign.

Staff Recommendation
Realtors Quality of Life PAC (PDC Case No. 08-103) - Staff recommends that in accordance with RCW 42.17.360(5) and 42.17.395, the Commission report the following apparent violations of the Realtors Quality of Life PAC to the Attorney General’s Office:
􀂃 RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037 – By failing to itemize in-kind contribution
expenditures totaling $46,650, benefitting Sam Crawford, Dan Pike, and Larry Farr, on the Schedule A to the 7-day pre-general election C-4 report.
􀂃 RCW 42.17.105(8) - By making in-kind contributions in excess of $5,000 to Sam
Crawford and Dan Pike within 21 days of the 2007 general election. The in-kind
contributions were $21,913 over the allowable limit.
􀂃 RCW 42.17.103 – By failing to timely file a C-6 report of independent expenditures for $10,000 that supported Sam Crawford, a candidate for Whatcom County Council.
Referral is appropriate because the remedies the Commission could impose statutorily are insufficient given the significance of the apparent violations.
Dan Pike (PDC Case No. 08-102) – Staff recommends that the Commission dismiss the allegations against Dan Pike. Dismissal is appropriate because the Pike campaign attempted to avoid coordinating its activities with the Realtors and RQL PAC and believed the expenditures to be independent expenditures. In addition, the Pike campaign did not report receipt of an in-kind contribution for the mailings based on advice it received from PDC staff.

Report of Investigation: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/commissionmeetings/meetingshearings/pdfs/2008/08102.ROI.pdf
Report to Commission: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/commissionmeetings/meetingshearings/pdfs/2008/08102.ROI.pdf

Friday, May 16, 2008

Washington State Public Disclosure Commission Status Report on Terry Bornemann and Dan Pike Complaints

Scheduled for Brief Enforcement Hearing:

Bornemann, Terrill - Case #08-086; Investigator Randy Unruh
Date Received: October 19, 2007
Date Started: October 26, 2007
Section of Law: RCW 42.17.080 and & .090
Status: Investigation Complete
Summary: A Complaint was received on October 19, 2007 from Elisabeth Britt. The complaint alleged that the Terrill Bornemann campaign failed to file timely and accurate reports of contribution and expenditure activities. Brief Hearing scheduled for May 23, 2008. Disposition: Pending.

Pike, Dan - Case #08-089;
Investigator Randy Unruh
Date Received: October 25, 2007
Date Started: November 1, 2007
Section of Law: RCW 42.17.040; .080, .090 & .051
Status: Investigation Completed
Summary: A complaint was received on October 22, 2007 and supplemented on October 25, 2007 from Elisabeth Britt. The complaint alleges that Mr. Pike failed to make timely and accurate reports of contributions and expenditures. It also alleges that he registered as a candidate one month late, and that he failed to include sponsor identification on a postcard distributed at a Democratic Party function on December 8, 2006. Brief Hearing scheduled for May 23, 2008. Disposition: Pending.

Pike, Dan - Case#08-110; Investigator Tony Perkins
Date Received: March 5, 2008
Date Started: March 20, 2008
Section of Law: RCW 42.17.130
Status: Investigation Complete
Summary: A 45 day Citizen Action Letter was received by the Attorney General's Office on March 5, 2008 from Tim Paxton. The complaint alleges that the 2007 Dan Pike campaign misused public facilities by using Skagit Council of Government email account for sending and receiving campaign related emails and sending Skagit Council of Governments materials to the campaign email account, including payroll and budget materials; and the campaign failed to disclose campaign contributions from devleopers. Brief Hearing Scheduled for May 23, 2008.
Disposition: Pending

Realtor's Quality of Life PAC - Case # 08-103;
Investigator Kristen Murphy
Date Received: November 26, 2007
Date Started: December 14, 2007
Section of Law: RCW 42.17.080 & .090
Status: Investigation Complete
Summary: A complaint was initially received on November 16, 2007 and received with the required certification on November 26, 2007 by Todd Donovan. The complaint alleges the Realtors Quality of Life PAC failed to report in-kind contributions to the Dan Pike campaign after making in kind contributions in excess of $5,000 within 21 days of the general election to the Dan Pike campaign, or failed to timely file a special report of Independent Expenditures with a fair market value of $1,000 or more made within 21 days of the general election, and failed to include proper sponsor identification on Independent Expenditure political advertising. A report to the Commission scheduled for May 22, 2008.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Increasing Fuel Efficiency through Synchronized Traffic Lights

The Texas Transportation Institute studies congestion in 85 urban cities across the U.S.

With all of the attention traffic congestion is receiving in Washington and other states, I'd be surprised if anyone disputes the Institute's latest report that congestion is increasing in both large and small urban areas.

What does increased congestion mean for the average commuter? In 2002, TTI estimated that increasing traffic congestion across America wasted fuel equal to 5.7 billion gallons - that's 75 gallons of gasoline per vehicle.

Byungkyu "Brian" Park, a University of Virginia researcher, announced that tweaking traffic lights to increase traffic efficiency can save fuel, reduces accidents and decreases harmful emissions into the atmosphere. Park’s computer model allows local governments to reset the timing of traffic lights so that cars and trucks flow through intersections more efficiently.

Unsynchronized traffic lights result in excessive engine idle time at intersections. According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/, over 17% of your car’s gas is wasted by simply idling at traffic lights. One way to increase fuel efficiency in a town that does not synchronize traffic lights is to shut off your engine while waiting for the light to change.

When should you turn off your engine? Any time you are forced to sit idling for 10 seconds or more.

Traffic lights that are not synchronized result in lower fuel efficiency, increased automotive emissions and reduced worker productivity thanks to longer commute times.

Typically, traffic lights are operated on timers where each signal lasts for a certain amount of time regardless of whether there is approaching traffic or not. Other, more sophisticated traffic control systems use underground electronic sensor loops to detect waiting traffic. Sensors operate like metal detectors, so lighter vehicles like motorcycles, bicycles or other vehicles with low metal content often get missed by the sensors, forcing lighter vehicles and drivers to miss turn signals and green lights.



New technology allows lights to be controlled by computers so control devices can be coordinated with "real" traffic patterns.

Unsynchronized traffic light sensors, like those in Bellingham, slow traffic by detecting a lull and turn red just before cars arrive from the previous light. (I can think of dozens of examples in Bellingham).

Synchronized traffic lights can significantly improve traffic flow and relieves local and state government of the need to build new roads.

Some regions are turning off traffic lights when traffic is light. In this scenario, traffic in the main street may receive a flashing amber light to warn drivers that they are approaching an intersection. Traffic in secondary streets flash red. In Europe, many streets have yield and right of way signs to control traffic when signals are turned off.

Other strategies for saving fuel:

Don't race up to the stop light - allow your vehicle to coast to a stop slowly and accelerate evenly when the signal turns green.

Reduce braking - constant braking, cutting in and out of traffic and rapid acceleration burns more fuel.

Turn off the motor when you stop at a friends house, drop off a movie at the video store or stop to purchase coffee at your favorite coffee shop. (Drive through windows create excessive idle time).

Additional information on this topic can be found:

Lawmakers work to synchronize traffic lights: http://wjz.com/local/traffic.baltimore.transporation.2.716483.html

Synchronization of traffic signals in Hawaii: http://www.lahainanews.com/story.aspx?id=7642

CA Proposition on Traffic Light Synchronization: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcliaison/resolutions/prop1b_programs/TLSP/TLSP-G-0708-001.pdf

Texas Transportation Institute: http://mobility.tamu.edu/

Other interesting topics for your consideration:

What's my vehicle's carbon footprint? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

Longer Yellows reduce crashes: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp

Texas City caught manipulating yellow time for big $$ ticket profits: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2132.asp

Source documents for City manipulating yellow time for profits: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5256916&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1