The Fight for Clean Campaigns

What would you think if I told you there is a way for candidates to run for office without being wealthy or indebted to big $$ money special interests?

It's hardly a surprise that campaign donors expect a return for the big checks they write to candidates during campaigns. Special Interest lobby groups, like the Washington State Realtors spend big bucks getting “like-minded” candidates elected to office. To add insult to injury, the lion's share of the funds being donated is raised outside of the legislative district that it is being spent in.

Remember the Building Industry Association hit piece accusing Ken Mann of bringing “outsiders” to Bellingham to tell us local Yokels how to vote? The Progressive Majority didn’t do anything that the Washington State Building Industry Association or Realtors aren’t already doing. The Realtors and Building Industry Association have National Organizations that are based in Washington D.C. They also have branch offices located across 50 states.

In the world of special interests, funds raised in Seattle are spent on local races in Spokane, Bellingham, and Olympia to secure seats for candidates that will cast sympathetic votes for the special interests that are funding them.

Political paybacks wreak havoc on our political system. Large sums of special interest money flow into an incumbent Legislator’s campaign account on a regular basis. For many incumbents, the funds come unsolicited, at regular intervals as allowed by law. Over time, these contributions fill campaign coffers with large sums of cash that will almost certainly ensure the defeat of any challenger during the next election cycle.

The constant flow of special interest money drowns out the voices of ordinary citizens and small business owners who can not afford to regularly contribute large sums of money to campaigns. Granted, special interest organizations will tell you that is the reason they formed, to provide a voice for the little guy - but what happens to the rest of the "little guys" who are not represented by a special interest lobby?

Publicly funded campaigns remove the sense of indebtedness that candidates feel towards campaign contributors. In other words, elected officials are free to vote according to their constituent’s needs, for the first time, they can place the public’s interest over special interests.

With public funding, candidates still face the challenge of overcoming name recognition of a incumbent, but each candidate receives an equal amount of money for their campaign which frees them from the responsibility of having to raise funds.

How does it work?

States create an optional fund that can be financed in various ways. Candidates qualify for public funds by gathering a set number of $5 dollar donations with signatures from voters in their district. Former roommates in Michigan are not allowed to contribute. If a candidate meets a certain threshold of donations, they will receive funds sufficient to run their campaign as long as they agree not to use their own money or accept additional private contributions.

Public financing is affordable. Washclean estimates that in Washington, "a program for all state executive offices, all legislative races, and all upper-level judicial races would cost less than $4 per person, per year - less than a grande coffee mocha!"

Washclean asks citizens not to "fall for the line that we can't afford it, or that it's welfare for candidates, or that it diverts money that would have otherwise been used to fix potholes. The truth is: When lawmakers reward today's big campaign donors for their "investment", it costs more NOT to have voter owned public campaign financing."


Many voters are disgusted with the favoritism that is created by private campaign financing. Public financing offers an affordable alternative – an informed public can change the way campaigns are financed.

For more information, please contact: http://www.washclean.org/

Don't Shoot the Messenger

When it comes to free speech, it appears that the constitution and laws are not quite enough to protect whistleblowers from public condemnation and public criticism.

Recently, a local resident, Tim Paxton, submitted a public disclosure request to the Skagit County Council of Governments for the newly elected Mayor of Bellingham's internet use from July to October of 2007, back when Mayor Pike was still working as Skagit County’s Council of Government Transportation Director.

Mayor Pike tells us in a Skagit Valley Herald article dated January 11th, that, like many people, he did "online banking and responded to personal correspondence through a web-based e-mail service during his lunch hour.”SCOG’s attorney, Kevin McGoffin, told Skagit Valley Herald reporter, Marta Murvosh that SCOG has a duty to review Pike’s web history to ensure that personal information, such as passwords or bank account numbers aren’t released to the public.

I wonder why this is even an issue, when the majority of public agencies have written policies that prohibit personal use of publicly owned equipment. No one authorized Pike to put his personal passwords on his work computer. All he has to do is change those passwords if he is worried about privacy. It would be prudent to do that anyway, since SCOG will be hiring a new Transportation Director.

Critics state that Paxton has somehow crossed the line by asking SCOG to produce Pike’s former web browsing history. But Paxton believes that Pike was posting comments on local blogs during working hours. If these allegations are true, then Pike owes the taxpayers of Skagit County, (his former employer), an apology for the misuse of publicly owned equipment.

SCOG claims that it does not have a specific policy addressing personal use of its equipment, although Kelley Moldstad, SCOG executive director, told Murvosh, "like other public agencies, it’s generally expected that SCOG employees use the web for SCOG business."

SCOG’s attorney disagrees with the Attorney General’s office (The Attorney General's Office wrote a letter to SCOG requesting that it comply with the public disclosure request) that SCOG computer records are a public record. SCOG's attorney claims that public records must be identifiable, and that a government agency is not obligated to create a new record. Which in my opinion begs the question - Paxton didn’t request a copy of a “new" record; he requested a copy of the existing record of Pike's web browsing history from July through October of 2007.

Recently, Washington State was issued an “F” in a national study that reviewed each state’s compliance with the Federal Open Meetings Act. I tend to agree with the Attorney General. SCOG should turn over the records, (with redactions of personal account numbers and passwords as required by law) so Paxton can review the web history and determine if Pike was using publicly owned equipment to post campaign comments on blogs during his regularly scheduled working hours.

Many Journalists depend on public disclosure requests as a tool to gather facts for articles and stories. So let’s close with this thought, “When laws, regulations, courts and the Constitution itself are not enough to protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press, there is more than just good government at risk.” Courtesy of Paul K. McMasters. First Amendment Ombudsman at the First Amendment Center.

Link to Skagit Valley Herald Article: http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=UE1WLzIwMDgvMDEvMTEjQXIwMDEwMA==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom

How much is that Park worth in Cold, Hard Cash?

Washington residents cherish the natural beauty that surrounds them, the majestic mountains, clear cool lakes, fresh and salt water estuaries, tidelands, rivers and bays that are unique to Puget Sound.

Northwest residents enjoy being outdoors and most urban residents consider open space in urban centers priceless. Green Lake in Seattle is a fine example of treasured green space around an uban lake. Traditionally, economic value is measured by attributing monetary value to something tangible like real property. Until recently, few studies have been conducted on the economic benefit of trees and open space to a community. But that trend is changing, now that researchers have determined that a number of emerging studies confirm that trees, parks and open space increase the economic value of commercial development in both suburban and urban settings and can act as a catalyst for economic revitalization within the community as a whole.

Real estate market studies tell us the value of a single mature tree can account for a minimum of $10,000 of resale value of a home and typically is 15% of the property’s value, according to the National Arbor Day Foundation. On a residential street lined with trees, the cumulative impact for property values is greater than the cost of the individual trees. The removal of trees changes the quality and character of the area for decades and that value is not always regained by the residential development that removed it.

A study in Beverly Hills, CA estimated that removal of trees along streets would decrease property values by as much as 25%; and its not just street trees that make increased density more acceptable. Parks, greenbelts, trails and other open space is essential as density increases. Residential sale surveys demonstrate that homeowners are showing a preference for homes that have easy access to shared open space than for homes on larger lots without open space area. Studies have shown that homes located near parks, greenbelts, trails and wetlands are easier to market, sell more quickly, at a higher price, and pay more taxes than homes not located near open spaces.

Using an urban park to stimulate economic development and revitalization is not a new idea. During the mid 1800s, Frederick Law Olmstead justified the purchase of Central Park in New York City by estmating the increased value of land surrounding the park and the tax revenues it would generate.

But it’s not just residential property that benefits from the inclusion of open space, trails and parks in neighborhoods. As urban density increases, so do the economic benefits derived from open space, plazas and courtyards in urban centers. With urban centers, open space provides public gathering spaces that are esential to our health and quality of life.

Bryant Park, also in New York, was recently transformed in to flower gardens and lawns. Nearly 4,000 office workers visit the park each day. The park has stimuated renovation of the derelict retail area and occupancy rates, property values and rents have gone up. Local coffee shops and retail shops are thriving. City officials estimate that the park will be economically self-supporting in the next five years.

Chattanooga, Tenn invested $356 million (private and public funds) in the revitalization of its downtown riverfront. Within the area, the number of jobs and businesses increased, assessed property taxes jumped $11 million (a 127.5% increase) and property tax revenues for both the city and county combined rose 99% for an increase of $592,000 per year.
In Oakland California, a three mile greenbelt around urban Lake Meritt added $41 million a year to surrounding property values.

Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is responsible for increasing property values $500 million to $1 billion for properties located within walking distance of the Park. The value of the park generates $5 million to $10 million annually in property tax revenue.
In San Diego County, a developer found that he could increase the sales price of his houses by 25% by scaling back development 15% and adding more open space for each home.

The City and Port of Bellingham have told residents that Parks are too expensive, that a large community park, open space, trails and generous shoreline buffers don't make economic sense for our waterfront and other parts of our community. I encourage readers to think about the long-term economic and quality of life benefits that parks, open space, greenbelts and trails provide citizens. Please do not fall prey to the City and Port’s false claims that open space and parks are too expensive.

And, how can the Port claim that there isn’t enough property on the waterfront to create a signature park for the benefit of the people who live and work downtown? The former G.P. Pulp mill site has 138 acres by itself!

Many communities have derived great economic benefit from the value added by open space. I think it’s time for the citizens of Bellingham to take a second look at the economic benefits our neighborhoods may reap from the inclusion of open space and natural features to our city.

Photo of Stanley Park courtesy of City of Vancouver, British Columbia

“A city that has been carved out of the forest should maintain somewhere within its boundaries evidence of what it once was, and so long as Stanley Park remains unspoiled that testimony to the giant trees which occupied the site of Vancouver in former days will remain. “The News Herald - October 30, 1939

Additional background information about the economic value of open space is available at:

http://www.ci.snohomish.wa.us/PDFs/2007%20Park%20Long%20Range%20Plan_Section%203.0-5.0.pdf

http://www.ouropenspaces.org/GIFTPlan/EconomicBenefits3.pdf

http://www.nhrpa.com/benefits/Economics.pdf


http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/tpl/ecoben.htm

Rare Tornado hits South West Washington

Authorities confirmed that a tornado touched down in Vancouver (Hazel Dell to the Yacoult area) about 12:35 p.m. last Thursday, causing no injuries but considerable property damage. Nearly 1,000 people were without power, after the twister ripped down power lines, uprooted trees and tossed cars, trucks and semi trailers around like toys. Our eyewitness told us that all of the shopping carts at Fred Meyers were picked up and thrown onto highway 99.

There were no immediate reports of injuries as the funnel cut a swath through a residential neighborhoods. The twister was classified as a F-O or F-1 tornado, the lowest level possible with wind speeds of 75-100 miles an hour. Many, many families lost the roofs of their homes.

A huge thank you to Poindexter’s mom for providing Latte Republic with a eye witness report. We are very relieved to hear that Poindexter’s family was not injured by the tornado!

(Please click links below to start tornado video clip)

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_011007WAB_tornado_vancouver_LJ.c5fd76b.html
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_011108WAB_tornado_vancouver_LJ.1028634d.html

Wanted, Dead or Alive - Signature Gatherers

1n 1912, Washington State adopted processes for initiatives and referenda. Through these processes citizens may petition the Legislature to enact a proposed measure, submit a proposed initiative, or order that a referendum of all or part of any act, bill or law, passed by the Legislature be submitted to voters. From 1912 to 2006 there were 957 initiatives to the people; 129 were certified to the ballot and 64 passed into law. During this same period, there were 381 Referendums to the Legislature and 28 were certified to the ballot and passed into law.

The Washington State Constitution specifies how many legally registered voters must sign an initiative or referendum petition. Initiative petitions require 8% of the total number of votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election. For Referendum it is 4%. Based on the 2004 gubernatorial election, initiatives require 224,880 valid signatures and referendum petitions require 112,440 valid signatures. If certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot and full and true copy shall be included in Washington State’s Voter Pamphlet. Additional information about initiatives and referendum petitions can be found on the Secretary of State’s web site.

In January of 2007, (last legislative session) House Democrats introduced HB 1087 which would prohibit the payment of signature gathers based on the bill proponents allegations that paying signature gathers on a per-signature basis increases the possibility of fraud; and, another bill, HB 2018, a measure that would require the licensing of paid initiative signature gatherers.

In HB 1087, proponents allege that the practice of paying signature gatherers on a “per signature” basis might encourage signature gatherers to misrepresent a ballot measure; apply undue pressure on a person to sign a petition that the person is not qualified to sign; encourage signing if the person has already signed; or, invite forgery.

If enacted into law, a person who pays or receives consideration based on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Another 2007 relic, HB 2018 would require the licensing of paid initiative signature gatherers. The proponents of this measure would require that “businesses” who are engaged in the activity of collecting signatures for initiative and referendum petitions must apply to the Department of licensing (DOL) for a license to conduct such business in the state of Washington. These businesses must apply to DOL for a permit for every individual it employs to collect signatures, whether they are “regular or contract” employees. Upon application, the “business” must show proof that each employee has completed training on the laws and rules governing the petition process in the state. Such training must be conducted in consultation with the Secretary of State. Permits are only valid for one signature gathering process (or business transaction). In the event that an employee gathers signatures for more than one petition, a separate permit is required for each petition.

If this legislation passes, signature gatherers will be required to display the permit while collecting signatures. If that individual submits fraudulent signatures, the permit is revoked and that person is prohibited from obtaining future permits. Both of these bills died during 2007 Sine die, but could be re-introduced in the 2008 session.

Washington state did have a statute prohibiting paid signature gatherers and it was overturned in Federal court because the state did not have evidence of abuse. Thus, the court found “no compelling state interest.” The Court rendered it’s decision in the 1990s.

Secretary of State Sam Reed is supporting the amendment because he believes that “paying on a per-signature basis as opposed to paying by the hour or using volunteers creates an incentive for initiative workers to forge voter signatures or commit other kinds of fraud.” On the other hand, most volunteer signature gatherers could be accused of also having an incentive to commit fraud, the expectation of benefit if the petition passes. Which raises the question, why would Reed claim that per-signature compensation causes more fraud than other compensation?

Secretary of State Sam Reed’s position is that signature verification is good enough to prevent fraudulent ballot signatures but not good enough to prevent fraudulent petition signatures. Yet, the only documented cases of false signatures being accepted in Washington are on ballots, not on petitions.

Things that make you go hmm.

Full text of bills and bill reports can be found at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/

Port of Seattle enacts Reforms

The U.S. Attorney for Western Washington has begun a criminal investigation of the Port of Seattle as a result of Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s performance audit and the findings that the Port is vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse. The audit revealed the doctoring of documents and the intentional concealment of facts from the commission.

Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive of the Port admitted that sometimes “shortcuts were taken and records were not kept up to date.” Yoshitani blamed a global rise in material costs for cost overruns and said it was not good public policy to call the difference between estimates and bids “waste” because it would encourage agencies to inflate bids to avoid the poor comparison – something the audit already accused the Port of doing.

The Legislature is holding a 1 pm public hearing on Wednesday regarding the port’s performance audit in Senate Hearing Room 4 of the John L Cherberg Building in Olympia.

State Auditor Brian Sonntag recommended that the Legislature clarify the laws governing to the competition required in procurements that result in the expenditure of public funds.

Photo is courtesy of Port of Seattle

For detailed information regarding the newly adopted reforms, please visit: http://www.portseattle.org/news/press/2008/01_08_2008_68.shtml

McKenna requests legislation for Public Meetings Act

A Washington State public audit of local public agencies found dozens of government employees who violated state law by witholding documents that the law says they must release.The audit was the first of it's kind to examine Washington's Public Records Act, which defines a public record as any document prepared, owned, used or kept by a state or local agency. These records are presumed to be public, unless specifically exmpted from public disclosure by law.In 1972, the Washington State Legislature declared, "Government isn't a secret business or club." It belongs to the citizens, and the public has every right to access records and participate in government proceedings. A national study of Open Meetings Act compliance awarded the State of Washington an "F" for compliance.

On January 4th, citing that there is a general lack of consistency in how governments comply with Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna announced that he intends to request legislation that will direct the Attorney General’s Office to develop advisory model rules for the OPMA to clarify: Agencies subject to the OPMA; meetings and actions that should be conducted openly; Notice requirements for meetings; Matters that may be conducted in closed sessions; any other issues pertaining to the Open Public Meetings Act.

Public notice will be achieved by requiring an agency to: post a notice of the special meeting on the agency’s web site; Post in an open area to the public at the agencies main office; deliver written notice to each local newspaper of general circulation; and, deliver a notice to each local radio or television station only if the station has a request of file with the agency.

In response to State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s 400 incidents of concern discovered during agency performance audits, McKenna is requesting taping legislation that would let judges review conversations from government executive sessions and determine if officials are abusing the law that protects some legal, real estate and other discussions from public disclosure.

The following principles govern the Open Meetings Act. 1) People do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. 2) People do not give public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. 3) People remain informed so they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Details of the OPMA statute: Any action taken at meetings failing to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act is null and void. RCW 42.30.060. See Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001). Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction to stop violations or prevent threatened violations of the Open Public Meetings Act. RCW 42.30.130. Individual members of the governing body who attend a meeting in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation of the OPMA are subject to personal liability in the amount of a $100 civil penalty. RCW 42.30.120(1) Any person who prevails against a public agency for violation of the Open Public Meetings Act shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. RCW 42.30.120(2).

For more information about the Attorney General, please visit: http://www.atg.wa.gov/