How do we keep the politicians and bureaucrats honest?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

How do we keep the politicians and bureaucrats honest?
With great difficulty, obviously! The Public Disclosure Commission has referred to the AG for prosecution the case against the head of Thurston County Transit, who allegedly used $30,000 in public funds to campaign for a sales tax increase. In their opinion, the transgressions warranted a greater penalty than they could levy at their level.
Now please don't get me wrong: Public employees have the same freedom of speech rights as anyone else, on their own time with their own money. They do not, however, have the right to do this on the public time and the public dime.
I recommend that we keep copies of any questionable brochures, videotapes of any questionable meetings, basically just REALLY WELL DOCUMENT the actions of the politicians and bureaucrats. I am aware of a few locales that have actually PASSED TAX INCREASES stating that this was done on the assumption that I-695 would pass, and further more stating that they would be RESCINDED IF I-695 LOSES. That one, I'm sure is going to wind up in court, way too close to vote buying.
So I'd advise everyone to go to the meetings and DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT. I wouldn't be shy about letting them know you're documenting either. You might be helping a GOOD politician to not go bad!

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999

Answers

Gee...
I wonder what would happen if the Legislature passed a bill rolling back each and every tax or fee increase to the day 695 was certified for the ballot?
Never happen, of course, but the thought of it DOES give me some warm, fuzzy feelings!
Westin
"A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 21, 1999.

For those interested in the full story, go to tribnet and search for Thurston and transit:
Thurston transit boss faces charge Public Disclosure panel says he used public facilities to promote ballot measure
October 21, 1999
Karen Hucks; The News Tribune

The manager of Thurston County's Intercity Transit used taxpayer dollars to support the agency's ballot measure earlier this year, in violation of state law, the state Public Disclosure Commission concluded this week.
The measure failed at the polls in March.
The four commissioners voted unanimously to send charges against General Manager Michael Harbour to the state attorney general's office. The move opens the door to harsher treatment of government agencies, including school districts, for their involvement in campaigns.
"This is something that is precedent-setting," Commissioner Ronda Cahill said.
State law says no elected official or government employee can use any public facilities - including office equipment, employees or publications - to assist a campaign for election or ballot proposition.
Assistant attorney general Steve Reinmuth said Harbour conducted "a sustained, deliberate, strategic campaign to get ready for the 1999 ballot measure." Reinmuth, who is the chief enforcement lawyer for the commission, said commission investigators found that Harbour approved spending $30,000 of taxpayer money.
Intercity Transit in March asked residents to increase its share of the sales tax from 3 cents on every $10 purchase to 5 cents. The extra $6 million annually would have paid for expanded bus service.
The commissioners, after listening to six hours of testimony Tuesday, agreed that a $2,500 fine - the largest penalty they can impose - wouldn't be sufficient.
If the state attorney general decides to press charges, the penalty could be up to $10,000 per violation, or three times that if attorneys prove Harbour intended to violate the law.
"I don't think we made large mistakes," Harbour said Wednesday.

-- (mark842@hotmail.net), October 21, 1999.

I don't know how "precedent setting" this case is... after all, didn't John Stanford replace an indicted Seattle Schools Superintendent who was busted for the same thing?
Westin
"Americans in every region and in both political parties have been shaken by the betrayal of public trust ... and the dishonesty of the public officials."...
Sen. Al Gore - Seattle Times, June 29, 1987

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 21, 1999.

You would keep them honest the same way as you would before I-695. This initiative is not about honesty. If the politicians and bureaucrats were not honest before I-695, then don't expect them to change after I-695.
If you believe that they have set up slush funds or pet projects before this initiative, don't expect them to give them up if this initiative passes.
Collecting documents, attending meetings & raising awareness are activities that have always been available for us to use. What makes you think that they will be more effective if I-695 passes?

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 21, 1999.

"Collecting documents, attending meetings & raising awareness are activities that have always been available for us to use. What makes you think that they will be more effective if I-695 passes? " Because the bureaucrats and politicians will be LESS able to say, "P*** on you, I don't care what you want, I'm going to raise your taxes anyway," that's why!

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

On the other hand, the natives are already getting restless:
http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory.cfm?newsid=11760&title=Fall% 20City%20historic%20district%20meeting% 20collapses&BRD=965&PAG=461&CATNAME=Top%26nbsp% 3BStories&CATEGORYID=410

Fall City historic district meeting collapses Oct 21 1999 12:00AM By Mark Morgan Editor
When King County Preservation Planner Charlie Sundberg and Historic Preservation Officer Julie Koler showed up at Chief Kanim Middle School on Wednesday, Oct. 13, their intent was to present information on the proposed Fall City Historic District to local residents. What they ran into was a buzzsaw of public outcry. After several minutes of open and rancorous debate from the floor, including finger pointing, some shouting, and general complaints against King County's government, Koler brought the meeting to an abrupt close. As the chief presenter, Sundberg took most of the heat. In a preliminary letter to the group, and during his opening comments, he informed the Fall City property owners that the King County Landmarks and Heritage Program had been working with a group of interested residents for several months toward the possible establishment of the historical district. The proposed district _ which could preserve "Fall City's unique historical character" _ would incorporate the 1887 plat of Fall City, roughly bounded by Redmond-Fall City Road on the north, the Preston-Fall City Road on the east, 44th Place Southeast on the south, and 334th Place Southeast on the west. Sundberg also advised the group that the commercial strips along the Redmond-Fall City Road and Preston-Fall City Roads had been removed from consideration, following comments from the property owners. He then attempted to go into the possible benefits of designation as a historic district _ such as tax-exempt loans for home preservation _ but several of the participants interrupted. Most wanted to know if they would be allowed to vote on inclusion in a district, and when they were told no, the meeting quickly degenerated into chaos, with continuous outbursts from the audience. Sundberg attempted to maintain order, but his associate, Koler, finally got up and announced the meeting was over, adding, "I've never been treated this way before.
"I think they have some legitimate questions," said Fall City dentist Greg Fawcett of his fellow participants. "People are concerned because it affects their property values, and it affects their livelihoods. Here they're talking about creating a historic district, and I think it would be appropriate to vote on it. "For the most part, these are hard-working people of modest means. This will decrease the value they could get for their property. I think it's grossly unfair of a couple of bureaucrats to dictate like this." Darrell Thompson _ who started the questions concerning a vote on the district _ stated he didn't come to the meeting to be disruptive, but was concerned about the "continuation of the harassment we receive from King County." "I'm saturated," said Thompson. "My property is being down-zoned a second time and my taxes are something else. My residence sits in the new conservation area, and now I can't even build a chicken coop on it. "I'm getting hit four ways, and now I'm being told I don't have any say in it. I don't understand. The county's supposed to be here to help us, but they harass us. People are tired of that."

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 21, 1999.

Craig--
that's classic. . .a "Historic Preservation Officer." That sounds like something a comedian would "make up" for the sake of hyperbole.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 21, 1999.

"Sundberg attempted to maintain order, but his associate, Koler, finally got up and announced the meeting was over, adding, "I've never been treated this way before. "
Too bad. Perhaps if she had, she wouldn't be the arrogant fool she is.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

And it keeps on coming! Both Pierce and MetroKC transit have scheduled public meetings JUST BEFORE THE ELECTIONS to "get public input" on what to cut. Now I wouldn't have any problem with them doing it AFTER the vote. Doing it just before looks like campaigning to see who they can influence. Think I'll attend a meeting or two, with video camera running, just to document how neutral the presentation is. Everybody is welcome to join me, it may be interesting!

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

How can any of you pro-MVET people say that the transit systems aren't trying to illegally influence voters when they post web pages and hold meetings just before the election??? Below is the Pierce County Transit website:

253-581-8000 or 1-800-562-8109 (toll-free in western Washington State only)

This page last updated 10/07/99
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Your Comments Needed on Potential Cuts in Bus and SHUTTLE Service Public Survey Schedule of Public Meetings Pierce Transit is seeking feedback from Pierce County residents on options for cutting bus and SHUTTLE services in the event that funding for local transit is cut by 38 percent effective January 1, 2000. Initiative 695, a ballot proposal to eliminate the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) and reduce license tab fees to $30, will be decided by voters in the November 1999 election. If the initiative passes, Pierce Transit will no longer receive any funding from the MVET. This will mean a loss of 38 percent -- or about $24 million a year -- in funding for transit services in Pierce County.
Pierce Transit's Board of Commissioners has directed staff to prepare a budget for 2000 that reflects this potential loss of MVET funds, and to seek public comment on proposed cuts in bus and SHUTTLE service.
To allow enough time for planning and public comment, and to provide the required notice to employees who would be laid off in the event of service cuts, the agency must complete its final budget and service reduction plan this fall. The Board of Commissioners will adopt the final 2000 budget later this fall.
25 Percent Service Cuts Needed Before cutting any service to the public, Pierce Transit will:
implement a hiring freeze. reduce administrative expenses. defer or cancel capital projects (such as building new park and ride lots and bus shelters). use some federal capital funds to pay for certain maintenance costs as allowed by a new federal law. Taking these steps will enable Pierce Transit to make up a portion of the potential annual loss of $24 million in MVET funds. However, Pierce Transit will still need to cut about 25 percent of the current levels of bus and SHUTTLE service to balance the budget.
Service Cutbacks to Begin in February 2000 Bus and SHUTTLE service would be reduced beginning in February 2000, the month of our regularly scheduled winter service change. To lessen the impact on transit riders, we propose to cut service in two stages -- 15 percent in February 2000, and the remaining 10 percent in May 2000. Public Comments Needed To help us decide which services to cut, we need to hear from Pierce County citizens. We are looking at these options for reducing service. Serve only the larger cities of Pierce County, ending service to rural and suburban areas. Run bus and SHUTTLE service less often (for example, every two hours instead of hourly). Eliminate all weekday early morning and late evening service (before 6 a.m. and after 7 p.m.) and eliminate all Saturday and Sunday service. How to Comment Please tell us what you think about these options. You can comment in these ways: Fill out the online survey below. Attend a public meeting. Call our comment line at (253) 983-2700 and leave a recorded message. Write us at: Pierce Transit, 3701 96th St. SW, Tacoma, WA 98499-0070 Attention: Public Information Call the Public Information office at (253) 581-8034 to speak to a staff member. Your comments will be used to prepare a detailed plan to present to the public later this fall. Please get your comments to us by October 31, 1999.

Public Survey 1. Check the statement that is most important to you: Pierce Transit should provide convenient travel choices to help address traffic congestion. Pierce Transit should provide transportation for Pierce County residents who have no other means of travel.
2. Do you ride the bus more than twice a month? Yes No
3. Do you ride the SHUTTLE (special transportation for people with disabilities) more than twice a month? Yes No
4. If you had to choose, how would you reduce bus and SHUTTLE service in Pierce County? Mark your first choice with a 1, your second with a 2 and your third with a 3. Eliminate bus and SHUTTLE service to rural and suburban areas.
Run buses and SHUTTLE service less often (for example, every hour instead of every 30 minutes).
Eliminate all Saturday and Sunday bus and SHUTTLE service, as well as weekday early morning (before 6 am) and evening service (after 7 pm).
5. Which bus services or routes do you think should remain as they are? (List actual routes, geographic areas, times or days of the week, or other preferences).
6. Should SHUTTLE service (special transportation for people with disabilities) be reduced?
Not at all (requires higher cuts in bus service). Less than bus service (requires higher cuts in bus service).
Same as bus service.
More than bus service.
7. Please add any comments here:

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

Oh! Sorry! I "forgot" to give you the URL for the Pierce Transit Propaganda site: http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/I695.htm

/I695, huh? Now that's REAL subtle!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

It would appear that someone is pushing up against the limits of propriety, if not past.
RCW 29.85.060 Hindering or bribing voter. Any person who uses menace, force, threat, or any unlawful means towards any voter to hinder or deter such a voter from voting, or directly or indirectly offers any bribe, reward, or any thing of value to a voter in exchange for the voter's vote for or against any person or ballot measure, or authorizes any person to do so, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
[1991 c 81 ' 5; 1965 c 9 ' 29.85.060. Prior: (i) 1911 c 89 ' 1, part; Code 1881 ' 904; 1873 p 204 ' 103; 1854 p 93 ' 94; RRS ' 5386. (ii) 1911 c 89 ' 1, part; 1901 c 142 ' 1; Code 1881 ' 909; 1873 p 205 ' 106; 1865 p 50 ' 1; 1854 p 93 ' 97; RRS ' 5388.]
NOTES:
Effective date--1991 c 81: See note following RCW 29.85.010.
Bribing, interfering with voter regarding initiative or referendum: RCW 29.79.490.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 22, 1999.

If you find anything illegal, report it to the Public Disclosure Commission or the State Auditor.
Public agencies are authorized to provide factual information on ballot propositions, if they do not advocate for or against, and it is in their normal scope of activity. A survey is probably not unusual, so the issue is timing and content. Turn them in, if you think it is illegal. They may have cleared it in advance with the PDC, as King County did their survey.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 22, 1999.

Good idea, d. If anyone needs more information, here's a "War and Peace" post:

RCW 42.17.130 Forbids use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns. No elective official nor any employee of his office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency: PROVIDED, That the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the following activities:
(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view;
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry;
(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency.
ALSO, FOR EVERYONE'S INFORMATION, THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION WAS FORMED BY AN INITIATIVE OF THE PEOPLE, AFTER THE PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS REPEATEDLY WERE UNWILLING TO EVEN PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO THEY WERE TAKING FUNDS FROM.

[1979 ex.s. c 265 ' 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 112 ' 6; 1973 c 1 ' 13 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972).]
Washington Public Disclosure Commission
HISTORY AND MISSION OF THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION
History
The origin of Washingtons disclosure law can be traced to the efforts of concerned citizens who came together in 1970 believing that the public had the right to know about the financing of political activity in this state.
Following an unsuccessful attempt in 1971 to generate legislative action and only minimal success in 1972, these concerned citizens-- now calling themselves the Coalition for Open Government (COG)-- turned to the people.
COG gathered nearly 163,000 signatures in record-breaking time in order to place Initiative 276 on the November, 1972 ballot. It was approved by 72 percent of the voters. Initiative 276 became law on January 1, 1973.
In 1992, reform-minded voters again passed a comprehensive campaign finance ballot measure--Initiative 134--that imposed sweeping changes on the manner in which campaigns are conducted in Washington state. Over 72% of the voters again supported reform, this time around, however, it was contribution limits and other campaign restrictions.
Staff email addresses:
Lori Anderson landerson@pdc.wa.gov
Rich Barnes rbarnes@pdc.wa.gov
Ruthann Bryant rbryant@pdc.wa.gov
Karen Copeland kcopeland@pdc.wa.gov
Doug Ellis dellis@pdc.wa.gov
Kyle Gubbe kgubbe@pdc.wa.gov
Scott Haley shaley@pdc.wa.gov
Susan Harris sharris@pdc.wa.gov
Toni Lince tlince@pdc.wa.gov
Patti Ostenson postenson@pdc.wa.gov
Genette Paulson gpaulson@pdc.wa.gov
Vicki Rippie vrippie@pdc.wa.gov
Charles Salley, Jr. csalley@pdc.wa.gov
Joe Simpson jsimpson@pdc.wa.gov
Alan Steele asteele@pdc.wa.gov
Phil Stutzman pstutzman@pdc.wa.gov
Bruce Wendler bwendler@pdc.wa.gov
Michaela Winkley mwinkley@pdc.wa.gov
Kurt Young kyoung@pdc.wa.gov
General mail box for PDC: pdc@pdc.wa.gov

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 22, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ