01/02/2006: "Friends... again..."

A few months ago, a board member of the "Friends" came by my office to see me. He wanted to point out that the "Friends" don't make secret deals. From my perspective, I am/was less interested in what the "Friends" did, and was far more interested in what the Ranker and Lichter of our BOCC did either with or for the "Friends".

As a kind of side project, I looked up the "Friends" in Olympia. No big deal really, easy to do. Also nothing newsworthy. So who are the "Friends"? The membership includes all three current Commissioners, but how does this group afford a nice office and as much legal assistance as they want? Most non profits of this type are stuck in some small low rent office, but these guys have the address, well paid personnel and more spiffy brochures than you can shake a stick at.

While the plaintiffs in the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Units) litigation where individuals associated with the "Friends", the settlement is being made is with the "Friends". According to their website, they chose to litigate the Guest house issue with a primary goal of preserving the GMA (Growth Management Act). If this were true, why would they attempt to settle with the BOCC prior to a ruling? Without a ruling, the GMA remains ambiguous on the topic of ADU's, and future litigation of the settlement is guaranteed.

When the settlement was being negotiated (in secret) Kevin Ranker was the person heading up the negotiations. Ranker certainly knows who would benefit from such a settlement – because he was an integral part of the Friends prior to his current stint as a Council Member. It is this kind of cozy relationship that is supposed to cause people with good judgment to recuse themselves from such discussion. Having internal knowledge of the beneficiaries of such legal settlement (information not even available to the vast majority of members, or anyone outside the "Friends") gives a real sense that Ranker is knowingly tipping the field to server someone else's agenda. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. As a Council Member, he should not put himself in a position where the question could be asked.

Usually, when you have a group that is active in lobbying for the benefit of a small group, there are some disclosure requirements, such as who is paying for and who is benefiting from the actions of the group. When an organized group affects policy, it would constitute lobbying. RCW42.17.020 (31) defines lobbying as:

"Lobby" and "lobbying" each mean attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by the legislature of the state of Washington, or the adoption or rejection of any rule, standard, rate, or other legislative enactment of any state agency under the state Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. Neither "lobby" nor "lobbying" includes an association's or other organization's act of communicating with the members of that association or organization."

Randy Gaylord made a lot of noise about chasing down a talk show host for campaign finance violations, but "Friends" who are on the verge of affecting policy in the county are ignored. He was de-clawed by Ranker and Lichter, who chose to ignore his advice against the settlement (Gaylord stated that the settlement was contrary to public policy). In fact any settlement made is now tainted by the relationship between Ranker and "Friends". His knowledge of the true beneficiaries of any settlement, (while no one else does knows) makes it unacceptable. That, and the fact it is contrary to the will of the people, and was agreed to in secret.