History, politics, people of Oly WA
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.
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.
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.
More Catholics on sermons, homilies and postcard campaigns against FOCA.
Shannon Says…
I don’t agree with putting people on the spot when it comes to politics nor should it be done in church. I feel if they said something and let people know there were postcards in the back and what FOCA was all about, it would not seem so pushy.
A very good legal analysis of FOCA pretty much points to the law as being what I thought it was, just fodder, not law:
The same combination, however, makes it a very good weapon in the abortion wars that have divided this country for over thirty years now. In my view, that is the true purpose of FOCA, which has been lurking around Congress in various versions for nearly two decades. Ultimately, the bill should be seen less as a serious attempt at lawmaking than as abortion-war propaganda dressed up as legislation. It’s noteworthy that from a purely political perspective, FOCA is useful to both prolife and prochoice activists. The bill helps prochoicers ward off any perceived threat to the right to abortion-even as, in its ominous shadows, prolifers see new threats to unborn life, and mobilize accordingly. And a new battle begins.
Which of course, is depressing, because that means our church isn’t smart enough not to rise to the bait.
One Catholic priest refuses to rise to the bait though:
Obviously church leaders have every right to promote their concerns in the public arena. But FOCA is a phantom threat. It is meant to limit legislation by Congress on abortion. It will not be passed. Why would Congress pass a law to limit its own power? One well-placed Catholic commentator stated, “FOCA has as much chance of passage as the [now 0-15] Detroit Lions have of winning the next Super Bowl.”
So, why is it that we were asked during mass to fill out postcards to our federal representatives to voice opposition to FOCA when we’ve never been asked to write postcards about more likely legislative topics like torture or health services funding?
This goes out to Chris who was wondering.
Yes, from what I can tell quickly on the internet, rural areas pay less in taxes and receive more in state funding by and large. So, the paradigm of Thurston County paying the largest portion of property taxes into the Timberland Library System and getting less of that back in services is, if its true, a common one.
That of course ignores the historic contribution of timber revenue from the rural areas that had supported library services.
Here’s an interesting transportation report that generally supports that.
And a Dkos diary that has a neat map.
I fully understand the facts of donor vs. beggar communities. What I reject is the assumption that it is somehow wrong and that donor communities should flex their muscles.
We aren’t in this alone, not the rural areas, and certainly not us. I don’t care if I don’t receive any money from the people in Lewis County and all I care about is that they spend their money on good books. And, since we elect the governor together and are part of the same library system, I can be pretty sure they do.
This is the first time I’ve ever left mass feeling worse than I did going in. Granted, I go to mass at 7:30, so I usually show up groggy, but I usually leave feeling pretty good and guilty for not doing more for my church.
Not this morning though. Today’s mass was the seeming culmination of a few weeks of chit chat about the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would codify Row v. Wade. Which is pretty bad if you’re Pro-Life.
Today, our priest gave a long sermon against FOCA and requested that we fill out post cards to our federal representatives stating our opposition. This is the most politicized mass I’ve ever attended, one that I hope the origin of was from earnest and well meaning ignorance, not cynical politicing.
Because, it was a hell of a show for a piece of legislation that doesn’t have a snow balls chance in heck. Even the Catholic News Service says so (yes, the Catholic News Service):
Spokesmen for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and the bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, all declined to discuss the prospects of any specific bill in a legislative session that doesn’t start until January.
All pending bills expire at the end of each two-year congressional session, so FOCA would have to be reintroduced.
Erica Chabot, press secretary to the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she can’t recall Leahy “ever mentioning this piece of legislation.” That doesn’t necessarily mean it couldn’t suddenly move up on the committee’s priority list, she said.
However, “if there were overwhelming support for a bill, chances are I would have heard something about it,” Chabot told Catholic News Service.
And further:
At a Democrats for Life event during the Democratic National Convention, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., called FOCA “dead on arrival,” Day said. She said pro-life Democrats including Casey and Reps. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee and Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who backed Obama during the campaign, expect their voices to matter when it comes to the legislative priorities of the White House.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told CNS that FOCA’s inertia so far doesn’t diminish the danger of it progressing now.
FOCA moved forward only in 1993, when Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House for the first time in 12 years. Introduced in the first days of the 103rd Congress, the House and Senate Judiciary committees quickly moved it on for floor scheduling within weeks.
But it never came up for debate or a vote in the House or Senate.
Now, you could assume that despite all these actual reservations, everyone is all excited about FOCA because they’re too ignorant of the process to know better. Or, you could assume that in the face of at least two years of Democratic dominance of the federal government, social conservatives are exciting the base about a straw man.
If so, it offends me that made it into church this morning.
Now, don’t get me wrong, politicking in church is something I don’t have a problem with. I actually appreciated the information and debate during the assisted suicide campaign last year. But, the over the top display this moring dismayed me.
Mostly, because we looked stupid worrying about a zero-chance bill. But, also because we take a hack at this pitch way outside the strike zone when we keep the bat on our shoulder when so many fast balls come flying by us.
Things much more likely to happen that are also not good if you’re Catholic:
1. War in Iraq will continue for the time being. Oh yeah, in Congo too.
2. 78,000 children in Washington State have no health insurance, at all. That’s won’t change, and we don’t talk about that in mass.
3. Mortgage meltdown continues and will continue. Strangely, even though Father cited the banking crisis as evidence of the moral problem we face, he didn’t go on to point out the number of Pro-Life conservative politicians that also voted to deregulate banking in the past decade. A lot more than Pro-Choice Democrats.
And, while we do hear a lot about materialism, I have never seen postcards in the pews regarding a banking bill.
Evergreen Politics is going the way of Pike Place Politics, Blog Reload Olyscoop and Better Donkey, and I’ve been meaning to write a post about where things have been going in the liberal political blogosphere around here.
Things aren’t like they were in 2004. Yeah, there are a handful of new blogs out there (Spokane Skeptic and the Other Side) which are pretty good, but it isn’t like there are a bunch of people diving into blogging lately. Washblog is pretty stale and has been for awhile.
Horse’s Ass is still going strong, and gobbling up other bloggers while they shutter their own blogs (see Pike Place Politics and Blog Reload). Even Josh Feit found a paying gig over there for awhile, and it seems like they’re becoming the liberal vesion of crosscut. Nothing wrong with a big blog, but I wonder about some things.
Do the big blogs left in the state-level liberal political blogoshere do enough linking to smaller blogs trying to make their way? It seems like I can’t go a day without seeing them link back to the Seattle Times or the Vancouver Columbian, but I seriously can’t remember the last time they linked to another bog not Effin’ Unsound.
Do A-list bloggers have a responsibility to link to smaller blogs (here and here)? Yes, in the interest of the blog ecosystem. Hell yes.
I pulled out of the community I’m addressing here as a serious participant awhile back. It had to do with a lot of things, some within that group of bloggers, but also because I found other reasons to blog. Also, I had a feeling that no matter what point I made, it wouldn’t be linked to. There were some nice exceptions, but those guys stopped blogging awhile back.
To me, there’s a striking resemblance between former Olympia school board member Richard Nafziger’s on-again-off-again blog and the new blog of the state Senate Democrats (mostly penned by majority leader Lisa Brown).
Makes a lot of sense for Nafziger to be Brown’s blog father, but the similar blogging styles almost makes you think that its Brown’s chief of staff that’s doing the blogging. Both write long (almost too long) and really smart discussion posts, rather than short, clippy newsy posts. I would assume that the short clipply post would better serve a legislative caucus blog.
Nafziger’s current personal blog has only two posts up on it, though he’s been blogging for at least three years. But, on the internet, nothing is really gone. I’ve subscribed to his blog since before he quit the school board, so I shared some of his old deleted posts here.
To me, it doesn’t matter at all if Nafziger is really doing the blogging. Good on him, good on the caucus, good on Brown.
The only thing I’d like to see improved is the length of the posts. In my internet reading habit, I’ve never been able to get my head around his posts in time to comment, though I’d like to.
© 2026 Olympia Time
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑