Island Guardian

Monday, May 22nd

Bankruptski

Some experts claim that the cold war ended because the Soviets declared Chapter Elevenski. Did they forget about the role of San Juan County in that once powerful country's demise? It could be said that the primary reason for the Communist Regime's collapse and the loss of power that resulted was that San Juan County declared itself a "Nuclear Free Zone".

Old timers will remember this event fondly (kind of like Woodstock but not as loud). As a small group of islanders, together we raised our fists in the air and said, "No Nukes!" We must have scared the crapski out of the Russians back then. Now we are flexing our muscles again.

Our County Councilors have hopped up onto the world stage like actors receiving the Academy Award and inserted themselves into the national foreign policy spotlight. They have put the resolution of immediate withdrawal from Iraq on the ballot. Judging from our past success with the nuke ban issue, I think our local resolution to withdraw all troops from Iraq will probably end the conflict.

In this sophisticated ideological debate about the direction of U.S. foreign policy our County Council has spoken with one voice from behind the curtain like the Great OZ and said, "Bush Lied, no WMD's, Saddam had no connection to terrorists, we can't win, bring the troops home now! Why is it taking so long anyway?" The Council's position is clear, full retreat, surrender to the terrorists, cut and run.

Since the troop reductions have already begun, is it possible that our Council's resolution on immediate withdrawal has already shaken the very foundations of the Pentagon? If the drawdown continues will the advisory ballot be mute by November?

I have many questions about what motivated this resolution. The new Charter has a provision for the initiative process whereby citizens obtain signatures in order to get a proposal on the ballot. This process insures that there is enough interest and relevance for an issue to qualify. The Council ignored this process. So I wonder, is this vote just their idea of fantasy? Or is this a way for the Council to pretend they actually have power to control foreign policy? Certainly no overwhelming majority of islanders is demanding this vote. The results will be pointless anyway.

But I am curious. Will San Juan County send a message to the terrorists that when the going gets tough we give up? Considering the Ordinance language the Council passed that outcome is likely. But if the Council doesn't get the results they expect will they ignore this vote too?

Will our message to the White House and the terrorists say: We are an impatient people. We cannot make sacrifices. We refuse to take casualties for any reason. Go ahead and take over the San Juan Islands. None of our values are worth fighting for?

Terrorists have defined this conflict. They have no rules except kill all infidels. They have patience. They are willing to sacrifice. And they seem to have no moral boundaries. They already know they can win. Our vote could confirm our weaknesses. If the Council gets the results they want I think they should send them to the terrorists as well as the White House. I'll bet they can't wait to hear what we think.

Like the Nuclear Free Zone was to the collapse of the Soviet Union so this vote will be to the future of Iraq. Irrelevant. Once again we have the chance to be the mouse that roared. We can show the world that our policies to defend this Nation are bankruptski. We have no will to fight. Our word means nothing just like this resolution. It is insignificant and meaningless. The only thing it does is puff-up the egos of the Council members. That's about it.
[more..]

Monday, May 8th

Full of Gas

The finger pointing over gas prices is at an all time high. It is not just index fingers either. I have heard that Iraq, Iran, China, OPEC, "Big Oil", and Bush, are to blame. Everyone is gouging us. But there is one obvious reason that has been overlooked. Are consumers paying too much for gas in Washington because of the actions of San Juan County? The simple answer is yes and here is how it happened.

Islanders are veterans of high gas prices. That is why it gives me some satisfaction to see people across the U.S. complain about the high price of fuel. What a bunch of whiners! Islanders have been paying substantially higher prices than the rest of the nation for years. We take it in stride and vote for more taxes on gas because we are tough. We love the pain. Hit us again Gregoire! Bring it on Exxon! Stick it to us Shell!

Our elected officials are full of gas on this issue. They shamelessly keep raising gas taxes in hopes that we will all start riding bicycles. Then these hypocritical politicians put on a mask of righteous indignation and scowl at "Big Oil" while posing for the media at gas stations advertising $3.00 per gallon (A bargain to islanders). As soon as the cameras are turned off they hop into their SUV car caravans and drive away.

It is not just politicians and "big oil" that are responsible for the high price of gas. Since we, the consumers, voted to raise gas taxes in the last election we will be paying 37.5 cents per gallon in state tax alone. We rank third in the nation in a race to see who can pay the most gas tax and we voted to tax ourselves more. Why?

Government promised to fix transportation if we voted for the tax. Those promises fizzled out. Ferry fares keep going up, service goes down, still no coffee on the ferry, the Freeway's are parking lots, etc.

The initiative campaign against the gas tax fizzled out too. The war to win the hearts and minds of the people got all tangled up in litigation. (See: Gas Tax Litigation ) We have San Juan County's own Prosecuting Attorney to thank for some of this. Let me refresh your memory.

If you recall, Mr. Gaylord, our prosecutor, decided that the blabber-mouthed-full-of-gas talk radio guys at KVI should shut-up and quit fundraising on the air and telling voters to repeal the gas tax. They had to be stopped or transportation would grind to a halt. Mr. Gaylord told me at the time, that we needed the funds for Ferries and Freeways and raising gas taxes was a fair way to pay for these things. So he sued the talk radio guys for failing to report airtime as a campaign contribution.

In this case talk radio was simply too effective. Polls suggested that voters were in the mood to shove the gas tax right back down the politicians throats. A general panic was brewing in Olympia over fear that projects could be cancelled and money would be lost by "big special interests" (see PDC contribution reports under Keep Washington Rolling). Once these "big special interests" realized that a successful campaign against the gas tax could potentially repeal the funding for their pet projects, the people who had the most to lose went looking for willing accomplices in law enforcement to stop the radio chatter. Invoking police power was the only quick and sure way to do this.

So naturally they came to San Juan County where many islanders think the Viaduct is in Alaska. And in most places around the islands reception on KVI radio fades in and out like the attention span of an old hippie (describing many of us accurately). But for some mysterious reason our little liberal county was hoodwinked into filing a lawsuit to stop this statewide taxpayer revolt. It worked and gas prices were raised accordingly. The other parties to the lawsuit have since dropped out and left San Juan County holding the bag and paying legal fees.

Many attentive readers will know that the lawsuit escalated from a squabble over reporting campaign contributions into a constitutional battle over free speech, freedom of the press, and intimidation of the media by persecutors, oh sorry, prosecutors. According to the Institute for Justice, the heart of the case is "about the government's misuse of campaign finance laws to harass and try to silence voices and campaigns with which they disagree". (And the fact that they lied about coffee service on the ferry to get us to vote for more gas taxes). On June 8, the case will be heard in the State Supreme Court. So it really has become more than a little dust-up over "disclosure".

What motivated this lawsuit in the first place? According to Mr. Gaylord, "The lawsuit we brought was to enforce the public disclosure laws. I thought it was over when we got their disclosure. All we were after was to get them to admit their contributions to the campaign." (8/12/05) Is Randy just a stickler for the public disclosure laws or was the lawsuit by San Juan County all about protecting the tax money earmarked for special transportation projects?

The evidence would suggest that the litigation was politically motivated because KVI came clean on disclosure and that wasn't enough. Furthermore, if this were all about violation of public disclosure laws the Prosecutors could have stood down and let the Public Disclosure Commission do their job. But the prosecutors decided to use disclosure laws to stop a political campaign that they disagreed with before talk radio turned the anger over gas prices into another Boston Tea Party.

It wasn't hard to convince our two new County Commissioners (that never met a tax they didn't like) to give him the authority to pursue the case once he told them that the Ferry workers would begin throwing coffee overboard if there were cuts in the Transportation budget.

But wait; there is new evidence that this was politically motivated. PDC disclosure violations are rampant right here in San Juan County. Several violations have been reported to Mr. Gaylord and those cases have received no response, no investigation, and no lawsuit!

What about the campaign in San Juan County right now for a special Real Estate Excise Tax? Proponents have sent mailings countywide that violate the PDC disclosure requirements. Our citizens deserve to know who is paying for those ads. But Mr. Gaylord's response to complaints was, "Maybe I'll send them a letter".

If our prosecutor cares more about radio talk show hosts spouting off about issues that have nothing to do with San Juan County and refuses to do anything about illegal campaign advertising in his own backyard, then we can assume that this lawsuit is politically motivated and not just about disclosure.

We are all paying higher gas prices because of a lawsuit by San Juan County to stifle the media. The Supreme Court will decide the validity of the case and sort out motives. But questions remain: Why is our Prosecutor doing this anyway? Will we ever be able to get a lousy cup of coffee on the ferry? Stay tuned.

[more..]

Thursday, May 4th

Shadow of Doubt

Just when I thought events at the courthouse could not get more bizarre, they did! The Council set a new record for breaking the rules and betraying public confidence in the legislative process.

The deliberations on guesthouses began by the Council Chair, Alan Lichter, revealing that he and Councilor Myhr had been charged with a violation of the Open Meetings Act. One witness reported seeing them on the outside deck of the ferry, meeting with several leaders of the "Friends of the San Juans". The meeting occurred after the raucous public hearing on guesthouses April 25th.

Chairman Lichter decided to put the issue to rest by declaring that, "No business was discussed, nothing of substance was said, and nothing occurred regarding the Open Meetings Act. We need to move on from there."

Council member Myhr reported that he "walked up to the group just to say hello, saw people talking and then realized he was not supposed to be there."

In denying that nothing of substance was said there was a tacit admission that the meeting did indeed take place. There are differing accounts about how long the meeting lasted. The account of the witnesses and even the account by the offending Councilmen differ substantially. This casts a shadow of doubt over their statements that "nothing was said that violated the Open Meetings Act" (except the mere detail of having the illegal meeting in the first place).

What makes this whole event stink to high heaven is that the Council has been accused repeatedly in public testimony of collusion with the "Friends" over the guesthouse issue. Those who have followed the process closely understand that the "Friends" have clearly been lobbying the Council to get them to pass their version of guesthouse legislation. Their efforts have included litigation to force their own kind of compromise. The "Friends" have been working behind the scenes and outside of the public process. This meeting seems to fit that pattern.

This Council has once again put any new ADU legislation in legal jeopardy by their disregard of due process. If the public was only suspicious and distrustful before this event, we now have solid evidence that the council has been making deals behind our backs with special interest groups. The process does not appear to be fair or impartial.

I do not think this will go away with just a wave of the hand. If the Council expects the public to just "move on" then the substance of that meeting needs to be placed on the record. I don't think anyone believes that "nothing" was said about the ordinance in that meeting aboard the ferry. Just tell us the truth if you want us to move on.
[more..]