Kitsap Caucus

U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., died today.

Murtha was chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on defense.

Next in line is U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair. He chairs interior, but we’ve made a call to see if that might change. We’ll keep you posted.

UPDATE: Dicks’ chief of staff, George Behan, said Dicks will likely assume the Defense appropriations chairman position and will remain a member of the Interior appropriations, handing over the gavel there to someone else.

The Oregonian has a story with lots of information about Murtha.

Dicks sent the following statement:

We are all deeply saddened by the death of Chairman Jack Murtha, whose entire career has been dedicated to strengthening our national security and improving conditions for U.S. military personnel.

He was a strong leader and an exceptionally fair Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and I enjoyed serving with him on that panel for 31 years. He was a ‘hands-on’ Chairman, routinely traveling to areas of conflict where American troops were deployed, and I accompanied him on many of those trips. As much as he enjoyed hearing from the generals and the admirals in command, he always took the time to visit the mess hall and talk with individual troops who would give him a ‘boots-on-the-ground’ view of the conflict. In November I accompanied Chairman Murtha and five other subcommittee members to Afghanistan, which helped broaden our perspective of the complex task ahead for U.S. forces there.

Suzie and I expressed our heartfelt condolences to Joyce Murtha and the entire Murtha family today as we learned the sad news. The country has lost a real patriot; the Congress has lost a real workhorse; and I have lost a great friend.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Brynn Grimley wrote a story about a loan a company can get if the county will be the second guarantor. This is one of those stories in which no matter what the commissioners do, someone will complain. Is this a “The same people who . . .” story?

By that I mean are the same people who are complaining about the county’s reluctance the ones critical of the county for loaning the money for the Harborside Condominiums, or redoing the loan on the condos? If you recall, in redoing the loan and agreeing to taking on first position, county commissioners did it because not doing it could have placed the county in a worse position, having to pay off millions without being able to sell units. Commissioners also said it was probably a mistake to guarantee the loan in the first place, but the three commissioners who did that are all now in different political positions.

I suspect this is a “The same people who . . . ” story because there is someone asking why the county wouldn’t guarantee this loan when they would the other one.

There is no way for the county to act without generating criticism. If the county agrees to back the loan, it risks forfeiting future Community Development Block Grant funds that are relied upon by local agencies. If the county declines to back the loan, though, it risks losing potential Kitsap jobs. For those who are full-time critics on the Internet, this story is a dream come true.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Peter Callaghan at the (Tacoma) News Tribune makes the case that lawmakers in Olympia are heading into private caucus meetings more frequently than before. This means deliberation on bills happens behind closed doors, which is something local governments are not allowed to do. He writes:

“It is an overused cliche, dragged out whenever someone notices the haphazard way that bills really become laws:

“‘If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.’

“True? Perhaps. Cynical? Of course. But it is also rather unfair to sausages and sausage makers.”

You should read the column to find out why it’s unfair, and to see how the caucus process has expanded beyond the House and Senate floors.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The Kitsap County Democratic Central Committee expects to have three nominees for county treasurer to county commissioners by March 8.

The committee released a timeline this week for how it will go about replacing Barbara Stephenson, who is resigning her county post to take over Bremerton’s financial services director position.

Stephenson was in office seven years.

Kitsap Democrats will receive applications to fill the vacancy until Feb. 19. On Feb. 22 the party’s executive board will screen all the applicants, then on March 1 will hold an election among the party’s precinct committee officers to pick three nominees.

Those names are set to be delivered to commissioners at their regular meeting March 8.

Kitsap residents interested in becoming candidates may get an application packet by contacting county party chairman Carl Olson at (360) 329-6706, kitsapdemocrat@yahoo.com or by writing to Olson at 1971 Jackson Ave. SE, Port Orchard, WA 98366-3458.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Tim Eyman is not alone in the quest to circumvent the Legislature and get voters in act of passing state law.

The Secretary of State’s office has a list of initiatives that have been filed so far. All of them would need to pass the signature threshold of 241,153 to get on the ballot. David Ammons in the secretary’s office has a brief piece explaining that the cost to file an initiative is $5, which might explain why some would go to the trouble of filing one even if the prospect of making the ballot is slim.

James Vaughn of Orting wants George Washington removed from the state seal, replaced by a tapeworm in a three-piece suit. Encircling the new representative of our state would be the words, “Committed to sucking the life blood out of each and every taxpayer.”

Had Vaughn issued a press release calling for the change, I probably would have hit the “delete” key between “re” and “place.” Since he paid the $5 for the initiative, I’m writing about it and giving you a link to the site where you can read it yourself. That’s a pretty good bang for his $5.

Eyman, who we expect to file initiatives every year, is in there a few times. So is an initiative on pot, another on illegal aliens, and one that would pass an income tax on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, but it’s called an excise tax. The language on that one isn’t on the site, but you can read it by clicking here.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

State Rep. Jan Angel, R-Port Orchard wants you to phone it in. That’s what we wrote about Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, when he had a telephone town hall, so it’s only fair to say it about the Republican.

I even included a picture from the same fine television show, The Simpsons, hosted by the magnanimous folks at Fox Television. Fox executives will undoubtedly be flattered that I included an image from the still groundbreaking show without the network’s permission or that of the show’s talented creator, Matt Groening.

Angel’s town hall will be 7-8 p.m. Feb. 9. She’ll be talking about the Legislature and state government.

If you click on the Seaquist link above there are some interesting statistics about the reach of telephone town halls.

Angel’s full press release, including the instructions for how to call in, follows.

Angel to host telephone town hall meeting

Citizens in the 26th District may participate from the comfort of their own homes
Rep. Jan Angel is inviting citizens to join her Tuesday evening, Feb. 9, from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. for a telephone town hall meeting to discuss the legislative session and issues related to state government.

“I’m really excited to use this new technology to reach out to citizens in the 26th District and hear their views on the issues they care about,” said Angel, R-Port Orchard. “Close to 30,000 people will be called and invited to stay on the line and join in a community conversation. They can participate from the comfort of their own homes. The technology works much like a call-in radio show. The interactive telephone system gives residents the ability to listen to a live conversation, ask questions and take part in poll questions.”

Angel said people are also welcome to dial-in directly by calling the toll-free Community Conversation number: 1-877-229-8493, and entering PIN code: 15472 when prompted. Once on the line, participants may select *3 (star 3) on their telephone keypad to ask a question.

“As a state representative, it is really important for me to hear what’s on people’s minds. The timing is right because we are at the halfway mark of the legislative session and we’re voting on important issues that will affect citizens in the district and throughout the state. This is a great way to communicate with people about these issues,” said Angel. “I encourage everyone to pick up the phone and be a part of our community conversation. It’s a free call, fun and interesting, and a way to make your voice heard about issues affecting state government and the 26th District.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

NPR does a nice piece on Keli Carender, our own tea party pioneer.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Traffic safety cameras were part of the House Transportation Committee’s work Wednesday. We posted a story about it Sunday evening. Following the jump here there is a TVW video of the entire meeting. Following that is an e-mail sent by state Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Enumclaw, to fellow House members and CC’d to reporters. He is taking issue with pro-camera comments made by Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata at the hearing. The hearing is in two pieces, sandwiching a hearing on limousine laws. The Olympian argues that legislators ought to butt out of the camera issue, now that the state has given local government the right to employ their use.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

If this blog has seemed inconsistent in delivering political material as of late, it’s largely because I have been immersed in a project story that will be out within a couple of weeks. When it comes out I’ll share how and why the project came about. For now I’ll tell you that it has to do with how people make major transformations or conversions in their lives.

Oddly enough there’s little, if any, political material in the piece, though when I started I thought there might be. There are pundits and politicians who migrate from one party or philosophy to another. Though I don’t really address it in the story, I think I might understand a little more how it happens. The conversions I’m dealing with are mostly the sudden kind, which I don’t think often happens in politics.

That said, 25 years ago when I worked as an intern in Washington, D.C. I became convinced that many of the unelected people on Capitol Hill working for elected people were mercenary. I also believed that few people in Washington cared about solving problems, it was more about winning. From my perspective, it’s way worse today.

You see above in the Kitsap Reader a Washington Post piece by Joel Achenbach called “The audacity of nope.” The piece opens with this:

“The state of the union is obstreperous. Dyspepsia is the new equilibrium. All the passion in American politics is oppositional. The American people know what they don’t like, which is: everything.

That sounds like nihilism, but they’re against that, too.”

My heavens, the piece is depressing, more so because it’s accurate, much more than it was when I was an observant intern in Senator Wilson’s office.

For me it makes sense now that there is an absence of political transformation in my story about conversion. When you get to thinking that Americans will be disapproving of whoever gets elected; and disapproving of the talking heads that discuss the politicians; and you recognize that your e-mail Inbox was once filled with calls for regime change in Washington instead of Iraq, but that now your Facebook page is filled with messages of calls to hand our leaders over to Haiti; you kind of wonder if changes in the political world really matter. The same people are yelling. They’ve just exchanged arguments. Well, the tone of them anyway.

I might feel differently tomorrow if I sleep better tonight.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A man who grew up in Bremerton and now lives in Arizona is running as an independent against U.S. Sen. John McCain, who seeks re-election. You remember McCain, right? He’s a Mavericky Republican who ran for president as Sarah Palin’s runningmate, was a POW and has a wife and daughter who support gay marriage even though he doesn’t.

Ian Gilyeat, should he be successful, would be the third independent in the Senate. The other two, Joe Liebermann of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, caucus with the Democrats, though Lieberman has bucked the party often. Three Republicans are challenging McCain, as are three Democrats and one other independent.

Gilyeat explains his independence on his site:

“It is my purpose as the next U.S. Senator from Arizona to protect our most fundamental principles and values; independence, self-reliance and Constitutional positions. I will do this by maintaining an independent position from political parties, special interest groups and favored lobbyists. The independent position is needed in Congress (in the Senate and House of Representatives) in order to freely work every major debate from a position of principle and moral certitude without being burdened by the party line.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Red-light camera haters might get some relief from a House bill sponsored by three Democrats.

HB 2780 contains changes to state law that could seriously curtail a municipality’s financial incentive for installing cameras. It could also influence the private companies that run the systems to find Washington an unprofitable place to do business.

The bill begins with the following language:

“The purpose of law enforcement is to protect and serve, not collect and serve. Anything that corrupts this fundamental goal of guaranteeing public safety demeans and degrades the role of the law enforcement community in the eyes of the public.

“Automated traffic safety cameras are rapidly devolving into just such a degradation. Rather than fulfilling the original purpose for which the devices were approved, these cameras are instead seen by some as an opportunity to fleece the public in the guise of public safety. Although the cameras may still serve a legitimate purpose, further restrictions are necessary to insure that misuse is prevented and that the public’s faith in the fairness of the system is upheld.”

The bill would add language to stop municipalities from asking vehicle owners for more proof once those owners assert that they were not driving the vehicle when the infraction happened.

it would also make sure the devices can’t be used unless the yellow lights at the intersection last at least four seconds.

Now for the fine. The current law allows the fine to be the same price as a parking ticket. In Bremerton that’s $124. This bill would knock the fine down to $25. Based on the numbers I’ve seen from the city, Bremerton would never see any revenue from the cameras. And that appears to be the bill’s intent.

The city pays $4,000 per month per camera, if the camera generates enough fines to warrant that payment. If it doesn’t, the city pays whatever it does generate.

In the summer Bremerton was grossing about $70,000 a month and with a contract extension with Redflex it was expecting to net about $26,000.

Divide $70,000 by five and the city would be getting about $14,000, all of which would go to Redflex. That’s substantially less than the about $36,000 Redflex gets now and doesn’t cover the $7,500 the city pays to staff the enforcement.

Should the bill pass and take effect in July, Bremerton could kill the program, but because of requirements in a federal stimulus grant for officers it probably couldn’t reduce its police staff once that traffic-camera money is gone.

The bill gets a hearing in the House Transportation Committee Wednesday.

A Senate bill, SB 6410, would just reduce the fine to the average parking ticket price. That bill, also sponsored by three Democrats, was referred to the Senate Transportation Committee but has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

That bill that would have said no one could serve two elected offices died a quick death Wednesday. Here are the details from The News Tribune via the Olympian’s Brad Shannon.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

In the end Wednesday’s city council vote on whether Barbara Stephenson should be Bremerton’s financial services director turned out about as I expected. She was confirmed in a 6-3 vote. I thought she would have between five and seven votes and it turns out that’s exactly what she had. The only moment I saw reason to wonder was in the council’s meeting before the regular meeting, when council members learned they could vote up or down on the nomination if they didn’t like how much she was getting paid, but it wasn’t their job to negotiate.

Mayor Patty Lent began the conversation downstairs in the big room, acknowledging Will Maupin, Cecil McConnell and former city councilman Mike Short for the work they did in 2004 to reorganize the financial services department and setting the standards for hire.

When Lent mentioned that the police chief and fire chief don’t have degrees, Maupin shook his head.

Lent then again went over Stephenson’s educational experience. She mentioned Stephenson’s six years of study with the American Institute of Banking, but didn’t spend a lot of time on that. It’s probably a good thing. Stephenson herself said the AIB training was not akin to a bachelor’s degree, which is what the city’s policy calls for in a financial services director. Instead Lent focused on training Stephenson received in earning a certificate from the Pacific Coast Banking School at the University of Washington. It’s a three-year program that she said was akin to getting an MBA with an emphasis in finance.

The mayor discussed Stephenson’s salary, saying the step 5 rate of $122,971.68 annually is less than what former director Andy Parks was making and will be less anyway because of staff furloughs.

Stephenson then received kudos from two people who know her.

Cecil McConnell said the fire chief and police chief are not required to have degrees. “The other directors that do require degrees do have them,” he said. McConnell also said Stephenson’s experience as treasurer does not equate to the kind of experience need for municipal finance. “With a lack of a degree and no experience in municipal finances, she be a trainee,” he said.

Carol Arends said Stephenson runs a good office in Port Orchard. “I think we would be making a mistake not to confirm Barbara Stephenson,” she said.

Maupin said it isn’t hard to find someone with a degree and municipal finance experience. He said the council’s job is to set policy and make sure that policy is followed. He said voting to confirm Stephenson would be abdicating the council’s responsibility to make sure policy rules were kept.

Greg Wheeler, Dianne Robinson, Roy Runyon and Jim McDonald all said they’d support Stephenson, expressing confidence in her ability and in her breadth of knowledge in finance.

Adam Brockus, Runyon, Wheeler, Robinson and Arends all voted “yes” before a single no vote was cast, at that point giving her the five votes she needed. Maupin voted “no,” McDonald voted “yes,” McConnell voted “no” and then so did Council President Nick Wofford.

When the council gave committee reports, Wofford and McConnell congratulated Stephenson and welcomed her to the city.

Stephenson expects to begin in mid-February. Her replacement in the county is a political issue, because she was elected. Democratic precinct officers will meet and choose three candidates. The final treasurer will be picked by county commissioners.

The extraneous item that was formerly here was removed. It was once a beginning to a paragraph, but I reconsidered and forgot it was there.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It’s in on the P-I.

The Legislature won’t consider a bid to legalize or another one to decriminalize marijuana.

But, if you hear reggae music, don’t be surprised to find yourself talking to a signature gatherer.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Democrats looking to rid themselves of state Sen. Tim Sheldon, “D”-Potlatch, have introduced a new tack.

The Seattle Times’ Jim Brunner has the story.

Legislators, including sponsor of the rumored House version of Senate Bill 6588 state Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, want elected people to pick one elected office and not hold on to another that pays more than $500. Sheldon is also a Mason County commissioner. If they upped that minimum to $751 it would exempt a Republican who’s on a city council. Otherwise you’ve got a Republican and a Democrat who seems to be the only one happy he calls himself one.

Sheldon is up for re-election for his Senate seat, assuming he runs. One Republican, Daniel Griffin of Allyn, has signed up with the Public Disclosure Commission to run against Sheldon as a Republican.

If you read the story, read it to the end.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A blogger at ResistNet.com asks who will run against Norm Dicks, Sixth District Democratic congressman from Belfair. From the site:

“Norm Dicks is a powerful man and it will take another strong man to run against him.”

The writer, Scott, then posts videos of Randy Neatherlin, who ran two unsuccessful campaigns for the state House seat currently held by Fred Finn. In the first he ran against a longtime incumbent. In the second he was outspent pretty handily, a point Scott makes. And Scott points out that 2006 and 2008 were bad for most Republicans. He then writes:

“The writer for the Kitsap Sun (Steve Gardner) called him the Republican Obama for his speech in Kitsap.”

No I didn’t.

What I did do is post an e-mail from someone who compared Neatherlin to Obama and in another post I agreed generally with someone who said he was the highlight of the county’s 2008 GOP convention. He was. By far he got the most applause of any of the candidates and probably more than the “Up with People”-like group that performed at the beginning.

Did I call him a Republican Obama? No, I did not. I would not. I can’t think of anyone besides Ronald Reagan who could move people with a prepared speech as effectively as Barack Obama. I would have taken this up privately with Scott, but ResistNet hasn’t yet approved my membership.

Could Neatherlin beat Norm Dicks?

Could Doug Cloud, who has lost twice but as yet is the only candidate registered with the Federal Elections Commission to challenge the longtime incumbent?

Given what’s happening in Massachusetts tonight (As of this writing, Republican Scott Brown was beating Martha Coakley, a Democrat, in the race to replace Edward Kennedy.) is this the year to try?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Let’s take a local story that has broader implications. I’m going to try to go Dave Ross here. Let’s take an issue that carries little controversy and ask why a broader issue gets so many up in arms.

The question is, “Where do you personally draw the line?” It stems from Josh Farley’s story, “‘In-House’ Public Defense Proving Cheaper”

The story is about how the county is saving money by hiring more lawyers. The county has to provide defense to people who can’t afford to hire an attorney. This, some might call it an “unfunded mandate,” has its roots in a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Gideon v. Wainwright. Gideon argued he didn’t get a fair trial, because he couldn’t afford an attorney, while his accuser could. The Supreme Court agreed. Felony defendants are now guaranteed a lawyer.

On Farley’s story there was some question about conflict of interest, but lay that aside for a while.

Whether the assigned attorney is employed by the county or contracted locally, taxpayers are footing the bill. Having one on staff is cheaper, so the county is increasing the number of lawyers on staff.

If you are generally against bigger government, how is this OK? Or is it? Should we instead pay a higher cost to keep government smaller?

The bigger question is where else do we do this? When we decide we need roads our government generally hires that work out. Nonetheless, the building of roads appears to be constitutionally protected under the “general welfare” clause. If it were cheaper for the city and county to build its own roads, should it be its own contractor? In many cases it is already. Should this be a decision based solely on cost, even if it might mean government gets bigger?

What if “general welfare” applies to health care? We know that almost anyone who needs care gets it. The cost is the issue, which is why we’re having the national and state conversation we’re having. Those who can pay for it do. Those who clearly cannot get theirs paid for. Some struggle, file bankruptcy, or make difficult decisions because of the cost.

Where do you draw the line? If the government is accusing you of a felony it will still get you a lawyer. If you have cancer, it won’t guarantee you care. It’s left to you to decide whether you’re going to pay to live, or at least try to.

Americans, and most countries now, have decided a balance between private service provision and public works is ideal. The question seems to be where the line is drawn. Where do you draw yours? When should government be the provider of services, when should it contract it out and when should it get out of the way?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Sure, there is a lot going on in government, and this space is normally reserved for that. But I wanted to share this. Molly Hightower of Port Orchard was in Haiti at the time of the quake and as of this writing her status is unknown. I found this video, though, that she made a little over a month ago. You can read about the context at the NPH Saint Damien Hospital Haiti blog site. I suggest you go there. This video is sweet. Very, very sweet.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Thanks again to TVW for making the governor’s state of the state address embeddable. Have you seen it yet? I haven’t either. The video follows the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post