History, politics, people of Oly WA
I got this for a Christmas present probably over five years ago. It was very funny for awhile, but while cleaning out my office today, I noticed it for the first time in a long time.
Now, I can’t figure out what to do with it? It isn’t really all that funny anymore, so I can’t see keeping it as an office decoration.
Is there some fun way to trash it? Or do I keep it for posterity, like an “I Like Ike” button?
So, what should I do?
It was a pretty funny post while it lasted, but Rich Nafziger (day job: state senate Democratic chief-o’-staff) took down his post awarding Gov. Chris Gregoire a “Hoover.” It happened soon after the Spokesman Review’s political reporter noted it on his blog.
I guess it makes sense you can have a big shot Dem staffer poking fun at the Dem governor.
You can see the old post here on my shared items, just scroll down a bit, you’ll find it.
It is Bob Macleod not Bob however you feel like spelling it (from her press release, via here):
Lisa Hayes is supported by a broad group of citizens including Neil McClanahan, Dean Foster, Dylan Carlson, Bob McCleod, Brad Tower, Susan Bogni, Carmen Hoover, Selena Kilmoyer, and many more.
Which, is I know, a little dumb mistake. But, not so small when you see she worked on Macleod’s campaign two years ago. She should know how to spell the name of a former county commissioner, her most prominent supporter (sorry Dylan) and a former client.
Your right not a have a uh…. road?
Having the chair of the county Republicans is going to be interesting, in at least I can try to figure out what these folks are thinking. But, since the new year, R. Scott has been sadly quiet on local issues. He did post up a collection of words that seemed to be his thoughts on the local party he now leads, but other specifics on local issues are lacking. And, yeah, he came out against the Timberland levy lid lift.
Anyway, he posted up on his google links about the local effort to bring together lists of projects for stimulus money and has this comment on a link to the Olympian story:
“Here is our local government with their hand out. Most of the stimulus money will be spent on government projects that intrude on our rights.”
So, how is Yelm building that bypass they’ve been talking about for over ten years an intrusion on your rights?
I’m shaking off the tragic metonymy in his title, but Rich Nafziger makes an interesting point here. Despite the Washington State legislature (not “Olympia” sucka) having one of the most open systems in terms of who gets to talk during a committee meeting (first come, first serve) the system still isn’t perfect:
The fact of the matter that the public hearing process in Olympia could be improved. Citizens are unable to take time off of work to come down make their opinions. Meanwhile, lobbyist earning 7 figure incomes clutter the hearing dockets and roam the halls. This is broken.
Several committees piloted web dialogues in the past couple of sessions. In the online dialogues, committee chairs ask questions relevant to key bills and citizens can register online and comment on the bills and the ideas. The dialogues provide a string of a conversation where both legislators and the public can raise new ideas, ask each other questions and comment on each others’ posts. Unlike newspaper online comments, the tone was always civil and constructive.
In my short experience with the few online forums the legislature sponsored (can’t find the link now), I was impressed. The online committee hearings took place outside of session and covered more general topics instead of actual bills. I guess that’s one reason the conversation, as Rich says, more constructive than a newspaper comment thread.
I’ve been toying around with an idea in my mind, a sort of super public comment tool for state government on down. Each level of government in Washington at some point has a need for public comment. It would be interesting to create a system online where a citizen could create a user profile using their voter registration (or some stand in for folks who aren’t registered) and then see open public comment processes in the jurisdictions they reside in.
So, in my case, I’d see public comment for the city of Olympia, Thurston County, the local PUD and port and the state of Washington.
I’d be able to post comment to any of the open processes and either have it archived for whatever public official will review the comment or immediately accessible to other users so they could comment back on my comment.
Of course, normal rules like not being able to overuse the system (three comments a week, for example), not being rude and not using particular language, would apply.
For this system, the important thing would be to segregate people into public comment processes that they actually are involved in. So, keeping Kitsap residents from commeting on an interesting issue in Renton would be a priority.
1. He’s paying attention to the right things, but the way he writes about them (not backup to his statements, writing the same post day after day just changing names) makes him look silly. I think the Transportation Benefit District is downright important, especially as it concerns the balance between impact fees and fees to drivers, but he’s making an ass out of the issue with his posts.
2. The blogger “Patrick” is anonymous. If you’re going to say something like what you’re saying, be accountable for it.
3. Your blog is called “Olympia Bulletin.” Do you really need to put a dateline at the front of each of your fake news posts? At best its amateur hour, at worst its like you know better but just don’t care. I mean, could you possibly be talking about councilmember Joe Hyer in Olympia, California?
4. He did a great thing with his blog aggregator, but by skipping over using links in his posts, he ignores the blog conversation around him.
5. Repeating #2. Anonymous blogging, especially when the wheel house of what you’re doing is ripping people down is annoying. I guess I’m ok with it when all you’re doing is attacking George W. Bush or some other distant figure, but when you’re attacking a local person, it makes you no better than “Truther.” Be accountable to your words, come out from behind being anonymous.
I really appreciate local blogging. I really really appreciate it and I’ve praised OB in the past (here and here). I’m just sick of bad, anonymous local blogging too.
Twitter 1,
constitutional reference book authors/attorney general’s office/county prosecutor 0
Thanks to this, I can safely say that the intent of Amendment 52 (through Senate Joint Resolution 24) to our state’s constitution absolutely gives the governor the authority to appoint a new county commissioner, if the a new one can’t be chosen through the local level.
A twitter angel pointed me to the collection of voters pamphlets on the Secretary of State’s website. And, if you look at the pamphlet from 1968, you find a clear description of SJR 24:
Pages From Voters Pamphlet 1968 Kingco 2007 000806
Nice.
Was Amendment 52 a minor edit? No, I don’t think so. It overturned Munro v. Todd. Either way, the county commission took care of business yesterday.
Was Karen V’s appointment legal?
Trying to explain why Karen Valenzuela was legally appointed
UPDATE (Wednesday, February 4): Yes, legal.
The lawyers that can actually explain to me why this is bunk are either not explaining or haven’t gotten back to me. But, from a Socratic exchange of emails with someone who should’ve been able to supply a straight answer, I’m figuring the whole problem out.
The problem lies in trying to prove that Amendment 52 passed two years after Munro v. Todd (which said the governor has no authority to appoint a county commissioner) gave the governor the authority to usurp the authority of the county commission.
The current RCW seems to assume this authority exists. But, I can’t find any historic record that indicates that the point of Amendment 52 was to give that authority to the governor. That said, the only thing left to do is to compare the section of the state constitution before and after the Amendment to see if the changes indicate that intent.
And, by the way, in writing this out, I can pretty much say that “The Washington State Constitution, A Reference Guide” misstates it’s title. It is not a great reference guide. It makes a huge mistake in implying the governor doesn’t have the authority to name a county commissioner.
So, here is a line by line comparison of the 1956 version of Article II, Sec 15 of the state constitution and the 1968 version (that followed Munro v. Todd):
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not confident in saying that the new paragraph inserted by a statewide vote in 1968 was aimed at solving the problem presented by Munro v. Todd. I also haven’t been able to find anything like a history or newspaper article that says that was in the intent or effect of the Amendment.
But, there it is. This settles it in my mind, but I would also like a more definitive answer by someone trained in such things like Washington State constitutional law.
Not that I have any problems with Horsesass, but don’t do it:
Speaking of HA, Goldy is thinking of integrating some of the more established local blogs like he’s already doing with Publicola. I’m inclined against joining at this point for a few reasons: I like the independence of having a separate blog. I don’t mean that Goldy will act censorious of anyone who writes here, but that some day he may decide he can put his skill set to use not hosting a bunch of blogs for very little money, and then where would we be? Also, I like the out-of-a-can feel of EffU; that there aren’t many bells and whistles, or ads helps keep focus on the writing, and it’d inevitably lose some of that switching over. But I’d like to hear what y’all think.
Because, we need more bloggers, not fewer.
UPDATE (Wednesday, Feb 4): It is totally legal. Never mind, move along. Nothing to see here.
UPDATE (Tuesday, Feb. 3): So yes, it probably was. As I’d hoped.
Let’s just get this out of the way: I sure hope it was, because I want Karen as my next county commissioner.
But.
I’m not sure it was legal. On a totally separate project today I picked up a copy of The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide, which includes this passage:
The power of the governor to appoint has been held to extend only to vacancies in the Legislature and and not to vacancies in county elected offices (Munro v. Todd, 1966).
Here is a copy of the Munro v. Todd decision, which seems to point in the same direction:
Thus, a board of county commissioners with one vacancy is a legally constituted body capable of carrying out its legal duties with full constitutional authority, by reason of Art. XI, § 6, to appoint a qualified person to fill a vacancy on the board.
There is no cessation of county government. If the legally constituted board fails to carry out its constitutional duty, it may create a political hiatus (as distinguished from a legal one) for which the two members may be answerable to their constituents; but it does not create a situation in which the legislature may delegate to the governor a duty that the constitution requires must be performed by the board of county commissioners.
Can the governor legally take the decision out of the hands of the county commissioners? A forty year old Supreme Court decision seems to say no.
Any lawyers out there? I’m emailing Hugh Spitzer, one of the co-authors of the 2002 book that I’m citing above. He’s at the UW, hopefully I’ll get an answer from him quickly.
© 2026 Olympia Time
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑