Island Guardian

Wednesday, January 18th

Collier Is More Than A "Concerned" Citizen

In response to the letter by Roger Collier, it would have been nice for him to have included in his letter that he is the former President of the Friends. Like any other meaningful disclosure, this would be considered relevant. The context of one "concerned" citizen, versus a player in the game, could change the perception of his letter.

I believe that both the County and the Friends will have to live with a judicial decision at some point, so why not now? The Friends stated on their website that upholding the GMA was their goal. I don't see a sudden change in the rate of guest house construction based solely on the judicial decision, except to make up for pent-up demand. If the GMA doesn't allow for guest houses, then so be it.

If we go with the settlement, who gets to choose who gets to build guest houses and who doesn't? Potential future litigation over the settlement is certain, and there is no question it will cost a lot of money, how much no one really knows.

Lets get a ruling and call it a day, we got close but then the "powers that be" made a deal. Even with the deal made, and after lots of litigation, some other County is going to go the distance on this important issue. Once a decision is rendered by the Court the rules will be clearer, and whatever settlement the County has entered into with the Friends may turn out to be meaningless.

At that point we will have to live with a decision that the County does not now want to hear. Why not just do it now?

[more..]

Wednesday, January 11th

War On Bad Hair Or Bad Ties

President Bush always talks about being a country of laws, but executive privilege always seems to exempt him from acting within the law, and his interpretation of his ordained power has always been seemed to provide more than has ever been intended by the constitution. He always waves the flag of battle with terrorists. How do we really win a war against terror? How do we win the drug war? Do we just forgo all civil rights and submit to martial law? The basis of our constitution is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and if we want to maintain our civil liberties we need to uphold them. If we pick and choose who this applies to, it won't be long until it won't apply to anyone, and how will do the picking and choosing?

Even a pro conservative court has ruled against Bush, and sent his sudden change of classification of a Illegal Combatant to the Supreme Court. The so called "Illegal Combatants" are questionable enough that the Bush administration doesn't want to bring them to trial – for such sure fire terrorist activities, this seems like a cop out, and at the very least an abuse of the constitution. Why would a conservative judge deliver a verdict against the conservatives you might ask? Because even republicans see when we are dealing with un American values. The Supreme Court has not blessed the president's idea of holding people without charge. When the authority to act in such a manner is challenged by the court, the Bush administration can't just say "whoops!" and charge them with something else. War powers should really be reserved for time of war. We could declare a war on poverty would that invoke presidential war powers? If it did, would it help? What about a war on medical costs? If you wish to enjoy the benefits of our constitution, there is a price, some people who are guilty get set free, people who say things that are offensive are protected, everyone is entitled to a trial by their peers, and so forth.

With the statistical risk of being killed in ones lifetime by terrorist attack being less than that of being struck by lightning, I am not afraid. I don't know anyone who has been struck by lightning. Don't get me wrong, I don't deny there is risk, but put it in context with other risks. You're significantly more likely to be killed in a drive by shooting, or self-inflicted poisoning than by terrorist attack. This propaganda gives the President a free hand to act with impunity, regardless of the dubious legality of his acts. We all need to follow his shrill cry or "the terrorists win".

This threat might seem compelling until you look at history and read the quotes of the likes of Hermann Goering – "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Sound familiar? It does to me.

[more..]

Monday, January 2nd

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.

[more..]