Report #2: What the candidates told the 34th District Democrats

Next time West Seattle’s biggest political group, the 34th District Democrats, meet, they will decide who else to endorse for the August primary — and that’s why more than two dozen candidates in almost one dozen races came to The Hall at Fauntleroy last night for our area’s biggest pre-primary candidates’ forum.

One week earlier, four of the contenders for King County Executive took questions in the InSPIRe-sponsored forum (WSB coverage here) across the street at Fauntleroy Church (WSB sponsor); with many 34th DDs involved in that group, they urged members to attend that event to get a look at the KCE candidates, but as for everything else – last night was the big night.

The marquee race: Seattle Mayor, which started the night; also featured – four Seattle City Council races, the Seattle City Attorney race, Seattle Port Commission positions, and Burien City Council. Read on for our marathon roundup of highlights (focusing on the city races) – including links to the 34th DD’s own coverage, as well as photo galleries, and a link to what we sent out via Twitter during the event:

The format: First a lightning round of sorts in which the candidates were asked “yes/no” questions and had to quickly hold up paddles displaying their answer. Then, a series of questions in which the candidates had one minute each to respond. In some groups, another “lightning round” followed that.

Mayoral candidates who were on hand: James Donaldson, Councilmember Jan Drago, Joe Mallahan, Michael McGinn, incumbent Mayor Greg Nickels, and Norman Sigler. Place cards were out for no-shows Kwame Garrett and Elizabeth Campbell, who is gathering signatures for an anti-tunnel initiative — she was in West Seattle but at the Viaduct/Tunnel “scoping” meeting, not the candidates’ forum:

The lightning round is where the clearest differences emerged as the mayoral candidates answered questions. Two examples: Nickels was alone in holding up “yes” in response to “do you support spending city funds to build a new jail”; he was alone in holding up “no” in response to the “do you support parking meters in The Junction?” (that refers to the city’s Junction parking review, under way now; our coverage is archived here). Here’s video showing most of the “lightning round” – the questions were asked by 34th DDs chair Tim Nuse:

When the yes/no questions were done, all expressed varying degrees of support for publicly funded campaigns, increased public transit, labor unions, LGBT rights.

One curveball came on an issue that often comes up at 34th DDs meetings – the fact that the White Center Food Bank, which has a clientele partly in the city limits (West Seattle from SW Myrtle southward), doesn’t get funding from the city of Seattle, while the West Seattle Food Bank gets, according to the 34th DDs, about $76,000 a year. Will you pledge to support the WC Food Bank if elected? the candidates were asked.

Nickels didn’t answer the question directly, saying only that he would keep helping those in need. McGinn followed that up by saying, yes, he would, and Drago and Donaldson said the same. Mallahan noted that he was unaware of the situation but thinks it “makes complete sense … that the city would help fund it.”

With some supporters of the “Nickelsville” homeless camp, which just moved back to West Seattle last weekend, in the audience, a little tension rippled as the candidates were asked about homelessness, but the word “Nickelsville” didn’t even come up (Mallahan referred to it somewhat obliquely as a “tent city,” saying “it wouldn’t be fair” to use a different term). Donaldson suggested that closed Seattle Public Schools buildings might be used to house the homeless; Sigler proposed two permanent tent cities, one in the north end, one in the south end. Drago advocated “street outreach teams.”

No attacks, no sharp disagreements, no harsh words, and after about 45 minutes, the group thanked the candidates and declared it time for the next group. Nickels left quickly afterward:

(photo by Johnathan Fitzpatrick)
A few other major groups around the area had endorsement meetings last night, though we don’t know for sure if that’s where he was headed. He and the mayoral candidates did arrive early for mingling.

After two Burien City Council candidates fielded questions, hopefuls for Seattle City Council positions 2 and 8 took the stage: incumbent Councilmember Richard Conlin, West Seattleite David Ginsberg, Bobby Forch, David Miller, Mike O’Brien, Bob Rosencrantz, Jordan Royer and Rusty Williams.

Of note during the yes/no round – all expressed opposition to the concept of having Seattle annex all of North Highline (this August’s ballot will ask the southern half of that area whether they want to become part of Burien); only Royer professed support for using city funds to build a new jail; changing City Council positions to geographical districts instead of at-large was supported by all except Conlin, Rosencrantz and Royer; all except Forch said “yes” to the concept of continuing to reduce the requirement that housing developments provide parking for residents.

Asked about cleaning up the polluted Duwamish River, it was another case of nuances among all trying obviously to stress their environmental credentials. Miller noted that he’s been endorsed by B.J. Cummings, who led the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition for years. O’Brien touted his Sierra Club leadership role; Rosencrantz said he’d led the Thornton Creek Alliance; Royer offered “Don’t just clean up the contamination, but also where it’s coming from”; Ginsberg suggested specific improvements throughout the watershed, such as bioswales; and Williams recalled growing up with the knowledge the Duwamish was polluted, flashing forward to the current knowledge that a cleanup is under way, “hard to believe it’s happening.”

What about public safety? the candidates were asked. After several other candidates voiced support for continuing to hire more police officers, O’Brien veered over to the root of the issue: “Yes, of course, I suport more of all the good things. The question is – how do we do it? We’re talking about building a $4 billion tunnel and we just laid off 170 teachers. We’re talking about building a $200 million jail and we’re going to close the libraries for a week to save a million bucks … it’s about priorities.” A few minutes later, Royer jabbed back a bit, saying, “Getting rid of the tunnel would not give us one dime more for police. It would be nice if it did, but it won’t.”

Williams wrapped up the topic by saying Seattle “needs to be a fun city to hang out in again” and that won’t happen without enough law enforcement to keep people feeling safe.

An audience question fielded only by this group: What neighborhood do you live in, and what neighborhood event did you last participate in?

Forch: Central Area, Central Area Festival.

Miller: As a past president of the Maple Leaf Community Council, he said, he’d “attended them all.”

Rosencrantz: Past president of the Montlake Community Council, and recently attended a meeting for 520 bridge-replacement planning.

Royer: Wedgwood – “Last night, the PTSA meeting at my daughter’s school.”

Ginsberg: High Point – recent neighborhood picnic (and he noted that with last night’s forum being held in West Seattle, technically that made it a community event for him).

Conlin: Madrona – where he had been land-use chair of the community council, and attended the Madrona Mayfair.

O’Brien: Fremont – Most recent, the Fremont Market, “and I’ll be in the (Solstice) parade in a few days.” (At that point, someone called out from the audience – “with clothes on?” leading to laughter.)

Williams: View Ridge; co-chair of the Magnuson Park Committee, attended the Magnuson Tree Fest, and added, “Trees are cool!”

Another round of yes/no hold-up-the-sign questions: Do you back the bag tax (which will be on the August ballot as a referendum)? Yes for all except Ginsberg, Rosencrantz and O’Brien (3:42 pm Thursday note – O’Brien says he supports the bag fee). Do you support parking meters in The Junction? “No” from everyone except O’Brien (who drew hisses, as did those in the mayoral group who expressed support).

On now to another big group of candidates, for Positions 4 and 6: Sally Bagshaw, David Bloom, Brian Carver, Jessie Israel, incumbent Councilmember Nick Licata, Martin Kaplan, West Seattle resident Dorsol Plants.

All opposed Seattle potentially annexing all of North Highline and potentially rezoning industrial land in Sodo to non-industrial uses. Opposition also was unanimous for using city funds to build a new jail; Asked about changing City Council elections to district-based votes, the only “no” votes were from Bagshaw, Carver and Kaplan.

The transportation question for this group led to a discussion of streetcars’ merits; Bagshaw said she would prefer to put money into buses, such as West Seattle’s forthcoming RapidRide line. Criticism for the Seattle Streetcar line to South Lake Union abounded; the strongest voice in support of an expanded streetcar network came from Israel, though Kaplan also offered some defense for the streetcars, saying that South Lake Union is “getting a bum rap” because the people aren’t there yet to use it in droves, but he believes they will be.

Should addiction be decriminalized? they were asked. This brought the most frequent use of the word “agree,” as the candidates expressed enthusiasm for each other’s answers to the question. Plants, who works at a shelter, said, “People want to go into recover, but they’re afraid the police are waiting for them there.” Licata urged, “Let’s get them some help; you don’t stabilize someone’s life in jail … the system does not work right now.” (He seemed to have a particularly enthusiastic pocket of supporters at the event, greeting that answer and some of his others with loud applause and cheers.)

What about preventing crime, especially among youth? Israel thought the problem should be separated into a “short-term look” and a “long-term look” and suggested beefing up “neighborhood policing,” which she believes has “eroded over the past decade.” More police are needed, Carver said, “but we need to look at the root cause … of kids getting into gangs at a very young age. We need to engage the community to fix this problem – everybody needs to get involved.”

Get to know everyone in your neighborhood, Licata advised, and that will help. Plants told a personal story of being jarred by the recent shooting outside Westwood Village McDonald’s (WSB coverage here), as that was not far from where he lives in Highland Park. “But you won’t solve it just by arresting people – we’re not putting the priorities on our kids, and that’s why we’re having these problems.” Kaplan talked about the “two Seattles” as a resident had described the haves/have-nots division, and mentioned last week’s City Hall symposium on gangs.

Other questions for this group included another yes-no round: The bag tax is supported by all but Bagshaw; parking meters in The Junction were opposed by all but Israel; Plants and Carver opposed reducing parking requirements for development.

Second-to-last faceoff of the night put West Seattle-residing Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr at the table with challenger Pete Holmes. No huge differences regarding the topics they were asked about, but Carr did provide a moment of tension when he began his answer to a question about the Public Disclosure Act by saying, “My opponent has been telling a lot of half-truths, so I’m going to correct them wherever I get the opportunity.” In response to a question about whether Seattle arrests too many people without “underlying charges, Carr said yes, but he believes they’re being dealt with appropriately, as his office has dismissed about half of those cases.

The final group of the night included five candidates for Seattle Port CommissionTom Albro, David Doud, Rob Holland, Max Vekich, Robert Walker — who discussed issues including port safety (incumbent Commissioner John Creighton had to leave before the three-hour event made its way to the port race, but left a written statement that was read into the record).. Our notes ended at this point but you can see their positions – and those of the other participants – in a document linked to the 34th District Democrats’ website, compiled by Christi Stapleton; the 34th DDs’ site is where you also will see photos from last night’s event. An additional photo gallery created by independent journalist Johnathan Fitzpatrick can be seen here. We provided short bursts of live coverage during the forum on a special Twitter account we’ve set up for intensive coverage of “live” events – you can browse our “tweets” at twitter.com/wsblive. For a full list of everyone running for office in King County, at the county/city/districts (school, water, fire, etc.) levels, go here – the filing period is over now, so aside from withdrawals, this will be the final slate.

The 34th District Democrats will make endorsements at their next meeting, Wednesday, July 8th, 7 pm, The Hall at Fauntleroy; they already threw early support to West Seattle-residing King County Council Chair Dow Constantine in his bid for the King County Executive job.

41 Replies to "Report #2: What the candidates told the 34th District Democrats"

  • PCO 37 June 11, 2009 (10:43 am)

    The fireworks in the Port Commissioner races began when only two of the candidates admitted to being Democrats – Rob Holland (former 37th Dems chair) and Max Vekich (former state legislator and ILWU).

    WSB- Thanks for the great coverage of the meeting.

  • WSB June 11, 2009 (10:53 am)

    Thanks, PCO 37 – sorry to not have massive details of that part of the forum here but as at least one of the candidates said somewhere along the line, you have to prioritize, so we stuck with the mile-long summary of the city candidates … TR

  • Christi Stapleton June 11, 2009 (11:28 am)

    Tracy! Wow, your coverage is wonderful. Thanks so much! And a shout out to JJTweets (Jon Fitzpatrick) for great photos! All in all, a good nite! Got see some compare and contrast, which was the point. And glad to clarify some key positions…as PCO 37 points out, the answer to that question has been unclear until that exact moment.

    Endorsements are July the 8th at Fauntleroy, so there is sure to be lots of action there!

  • Jan Drago June 11, 2009 (12:33 pm)

    I want to add my thanks for the great wrap-up, WSB! And to the 34th District Dems for hosting a great event. Good turnout, too!

    Jan

  • 34th mbr June 11, 2009 (12:53 pm)

    Christi, are you saying that no one knew that three of the five candidates for Port Commissioner were not Democrats? If so, I think you are wrong. I knew, and so did a lot of other people. David Doud even ran for the State Legislature as a Republican.

  • Christi Stapleton June 11, 2009 (1:08 pm)

    Sorry that last on is from Christi – had my twitter hat on and messed it up!

  • Christi Stapleton June 11, 2009 (1:10 pm)

    I think lots of “us” knew. At the Port Forum, there was lots of talk about “democratic values” and “working families” and such. To the uninitiated, there was room for confusion. Even the KCDCC questionnaires were carefully worded on the topic. Doud is R and is open about it, so no suprises for anyone there, I think.

  • Elizabeth Campbell June 11, 2009 (1:25 pm)

    To the question posted, why would you vote for me, you would vote for me because you recognize that I take my obligations to work for certain things to heart, that I am a good representative for the causes I am associating with, that I stick with the jobs that I commit to, that I take my responsibilities seriously.

    I had a choice, to either go promote myself or to promote a cause that many people have both given money, time, or support to, the I-99 no tunnel initiative.

    There will be multiple opportunities to get to know me, including on the web, other forums, in print, in the media. So my not being there last night was not about snubbing the 34th District, it was about doing something for the people of the 34th District.

    Looking forward to the next opportunity to meet and greet those who I missed last night, and in the meantime learn more about me at http://www.c4seattlemayor.com

    Elizabeth Campbell

  • Gidge June 11, 2009 (1:41 pm)

    Are you sure that O’Brien didn’t back the bag fee?

  • WSB June 11, 2009 (1:47 pm)

    That’s what my notes say … I didn’t roll video beyond the mayoral lightning round, realizing that writing would be more efficient, but certainly there were people taking official records, and if one of them says my notes are in error, I’d be happy to fix … TR

  • Christi Stapleton June 11, 2009 (3:57 pm)

    TR: O’Brien did support the bag fee.

    from FB: Mike O’Brien A synopsis of the 34th District Dem forum last night. Note an error: I do support the bag fee. http://shar.es/g7q6

  • Mike O'Brien June 11, 2009 (4:08 pm)

    This is Mike O’Biren, and I support the bag fee.

  • WSB June 11, 2009 (4:34 pm)

    We added that above after getting a note from your campaign – TR

  • 34th mbr June 11, 2009 (4:56 pm)

    Christi, In reference to the King County Democrats questionnaire, I don’t know how it could be more clear: “Are you a Democrat? Are you known as a Democrat?” None of the three candidates in question filled out a KCDCC questionnaire, nor are they on the list of candidates on the KCDCC website. I believe only Democrats are on that list. Frankly, I’m surprised that, with the packed agenda, time was wasted on people who will not be receiving an endorsement from Democrats. I thought the main purpose of the Forum was to compare and contrast the candidates so members can make an informed decision at the endorsement meeting.

  • Christi Stapleton June 11, 2009 (6:02 pm)

    I agree that the question is clear, but the devil is in the answer, apparently. For instance:

    I hold a nonpartisan office, but believe that my values and governing record as a port commissioner align with the Democratic Party.

    Not really a yes. Not a No. That’s Creighton. He left early and missed the Port section of the forum.

    CREIGHTON’s exceptions: I differ with the King County Democrats Platform on the following issues: While I wholeheartedly support freedom of religion and separation of church and state as enshrined by our founding fathers in the US Constitution, I also support the placing of religious symbols reflective of the Judeo-Christian values upon which our nation was founded in public spaces during the Christmas season. While I support a progressive tax system that does not unduly burden low income families, I do not support an income tax or any other change to our state tax system that would discourage businesses from locating and creating jobs in our region, or talented people from moving to our state. I also do not support a state level estate tax that is not deductible from federal estate tax obligations, as I believe that it drives away people with the means and talent to foster economic activity that benefits everyone in our region, and in the end decreases the total amount of revenue that the state would otherwise receive through its tax
    system. I support the “No Child Left Behind” Act and the retention of state-wide student assessment exams that can measure how well our education system is serving the needs of our children and equipping them with the skills necessary for them to succeed in life. Our state cannot succeed without ensuring a skilled, competitive workforce. I support publicly funded charter schools and voucher programs, and
    examining other innovative ways to equip our children with the skills necessary to compete and succeed in modern society. I support the United States government pursuing policies that guard against multilateral institutions from infringing on our national sovereignty when the policies promoted by those institutions do not serve US national interests. I do not support adding to the federal bureaucracy by creating a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Nonviolence – I believe that we currently have an extremely capable Secretary of State who can promote those values within her agency. While I support a
    comprehensive national health care policy that promotes universal coverage, I believe that each individual citizen should have a choice in their health plan and health provider. I do not support government interference in the faith-based policies of religious institutions. I believe that, under our federal system, whether a particular state implements right to work laws should be decided by the citizens of that state. I
    support maintaining the status quo in the State of Washington. I don’t support a blanket policy prohibiting the privatization of prisons and jails. I believe that each locality needs to decide what is best in view of its particular circumstance, and that there are many rehabilitative-oriented services associated with our correctional system that are more efficiently provided by private operators. I do, however, support mandatory standards for private operators.

    http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/2009/jcreighton.q1.pdf

    ALL candidate’s were on KCDCC’s site until filing passed and a candidate failed to file a KCDCC questionnaire. Albro and Doud apparently failed to file one and are now off the site.

    At the Port Forum, Albro’s speech was peppered with “democratisms” and things appeared unclear to some. Hence: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/169764.asp

    The 34th did require that they filled out the KCDCC questionnaire in the invites and a decision was made at the last minute to allow several candidates, not just port candidates, to participate. Here’s the invite:

    “Participation requires a completed Candidate Questionnaire filed with King County Dems by the June 5th filing date. It is located at King County Democrats website. Your complete King County Democrats questionnaire will be posted on our website, as well as compiled into a single document representing all candidates for ease of information for our members.”

    I, for one, am pretty happy with the way it turned out, because Albro said “NO” when asked “Are you a Democrat”, so that’s nice to know. I think Doud is on record as an R, though.

    In the final analysis, it probably wasted a few minutes, but I suspect that Max Vekich, who is a stellar candidate, is happy to have that question on record. Eh?

    So, while there’s some grumblers and rock throwers, no harm was really done, and the 34th DID get to “compare and contrast”, which was the purpose.

    I think it’s pretty democratic to get all the facts and make fact-based decisions and I certainly don’t wan’t to get in the game of denying candidates because, based on their questionnaire, WE judge them to be “not a good enough” democrate.

    All candidate matrix here: http://www.34dems.org/Docs2009/Candidates-Forum-KC-Questionnaire-Matrix.pdf

  • Becky S. June 11, 2009 (10:45 pm)

    Royer is very incorrect when he says, “Getting rid of the tunnel would not give us one dime more for police.”

    Seattle is responsible to pay the cost overruns for the 4.2 billion dollar project. Cost overruns for projects of this size average 30% – that’s over 1 billion dollars for Seattle to pay.

    How can that not take money away from other priorities?

  • Angry Democrat June 12, 2009 (7:07 am)

    I for one am disgusted that known Republicans apparently were INVITED to this forum. If they choose to show up on their own to a Democratic Party event, that’s fine, that’s on them. But whoever decided to INVITE known Republicans to our District should never have any part in event planning again.

  • Christi Stapleton June 12, 2009 (10:35 am)

    I agree that the question is clear, answers, not so much.

    ALL candidates were on KCDCC’s site until filing passed and a candidate failed to file a KCDCC questionnaire. Albro and Doud apparently failed to file one and are now off the site. Creighton is still on, but the form doesn’t actually say YES to that question.

    http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/2009/jcreighton.q1.pdf

    The 34th did require a KCDCC questionnaire in the invites and a decision was made at the last minute to allow several candidates, not just port candidates, to participate.

    In the final analysis, it probably wasted a few minutes. But now status is clear.

    So, while there’s some grumblers and rock throwers, no harm was really done, and the 34th DID get to “compare and contrast”, which was the purpose.

    All candidate matrix here: http://www.34dems.org/Docs2009/Candidates-Forum-KC-Questionnaire-Matrix.pdf

  • Christi Stapleton June 12, 2009 (11:03 am)

    @angry democrat – I’ll be sure to pass your thoughts along.

    In a non-partisan race, KCDCC has figured out already – until they file a public document that says D or R, it’s unseemly decide who is and who isn’t. Then you get in the business of deciding things that may or may not be part of the public record.

    KCDCC puts all the candidates who filed on the website and only reduces the list after the deadline for questionnaires. We took the same approach, which is fair and above board.

  • Angry Democrat June 12, 2009 (11:04 am)

    Friends do not let friends drive drunk, and Democrats do not let Democrats provide a forum for Republicans.

  • Christi Stapleton June 12, 2009 (11:09 am)

    Final note: there is a photo of the port race here

    http://tinyurl.com/nd5vph

    It’s wasn’t part of the public record before and now it is. Strategically speaking – not such a bad thing for the Democratic candidates.

    @angry if you care to volunteer, I’m sure the 34th would love to have help.

  • 34th mbr June 12, 2009 (12:55 pm)

    I am not a grumbler or rock thrower. We have rules and you didn’t follow them. If a known Republican such as David Doud didn’t fill out the REQUIRED questionnaire, then you can only assume it’s because he’s a Republican. If a candidate did not fill out the questionnaire, there was nothing stopping you from asking them to fill it out. It’s on the KCDCC website. If they refuse, then they aren’t invited. And that’s that. KCDCC requires a filled out questionnaire, and that questionnaire asks if the candidate is a Democrat. Unless that candidate can honestly answer yes to that question, they are not endorsed.

    By the way, there are several Democrats on the KCDCC website who have not yet filled out a questionnaire, and they have not been removed from the list.

  • Christi Stapleton June 12, 2009 (4:53 pm)

    I’ll pass your thoughts on to the decision-makers that you would like candidates who don’t fill out the questionnaire to be prevented from speaking.

    Is your proposal to only invite candidates that are on public record as dems. If so, how do you proposed to handle non-partisan races. Do you wish to to univite all of those that don’t fill out the questionnaire – only the one that are rumored to not be dems? Thirdly, what is your proposal about candidates who answer the questionnaire, but whose answers are designed to no answer the question, and in fact have exceptions to large parts of the platform?

    The 34th did ask that the questionnaires be completed. And they were reminded that we need them filled out by 9 am on the 9th.

    I, for one, don’t believe that it’s right or strategic for LD’s to decide based on opinion or assumptions whether a candidate in a non-partisan race is a republican, a democrat, or not to try and determine to what degree they are either.

    Be sure and send me your email, so we can make sure you are on the planning committee for the heaving lifting on the next one of these meetings.

    There’s a board meeting coming up, so should could bring this up for discussion! Probably better to put a face to the name and have open dialogue.

  • 34th mbr June 12, 2009 (6:01 pm)

    You asked them to fill out the questionnaire and they didn’t do it? Yes, you can pass my thoughts on to the decision makers that I would like candidates who REFUSE to fill out a simple questionnaire to be prevented from speaking at a Democratic forum. Why waste time on candidates who are not eligible for endorsement? To be considered for our endorsement, the 34th District Democrats’ bylaws, which are easily found on our website, require candidates to fill out any questionnaire presented to them, including the KCDCC questionnaire, and that they be Democrats. Why do you think it’s so onerous for candidates to fill out a simple form and answer a simple question: “Are you a Democrat?” We’re Democrats. We elect Democrats. That’s what we do. The Republicans do it too. They elect Republicans. That’s what politics is about. Yes, this is a non-partisan race, but that doesn’t mean that we ignore party affiliation. It’s not up to you to decide what is right or strategic about who we endorse. We endorse Democrats.

    In the case of John Creighton, who gave an ambiguous answer, he needs to be grilled about his party affiliation, but at least he filled out the questionnaire. Our endorsement isn’t that important anyway because he’s unopposed.

    I don’t consider it to be “rumored” that a candidate is a Republicans when he has run for State office as just that.

  • Angry Democrat June 12, 2009 (10:02 pm)

    Christi, you’re only digging yourself a deeper hole every time you try to escape responsibility for your poor judgment and lack of experience. You are speaking for yourself and not for the District organization. According to the 34th District Dems website, you are not even an elected officer.

    Why then are you making decisions for the organization? Who’s in charge there anyway? Are you holding our chairman hostage in your basement and only letting him out for meetings?

  • Stephen Lamphear June 12, 2009 (11:58 pm)

    I was surprised to hear Democrat Max Vekich voice support for Republican John Creighton in his unopposed re-election. Hey! Creighton was in the room when the big gift was approved for former CEO Dinsmore. Creighton was in the room when the police traded sexual emails. Did he do anything about either mess — hell NO!

    Creighton can pretend to be “reformist” but leopards don’t change their spots.

    What was Max thinking?

  • Christi Stapleton June 13, 2009 (12:09 am)

    @Angry Democrat

    Ivan,

    I suggest you take this issue to the next board meeting of the 34th. I have asked that your issue be placed on the agenda. It is appropriate to discuss this issue in person with decision-makers present.

    Regards,

    Christi Stapleton

    BTW: What happened to your handle? Tracy can help you restore your username if you are having problems. Do you have her email address?

  • Stephen Lamphear June 13, 2009 (12:10 am)

    @ Angry Democrat and 34th member, all resp;onsibility for the LD’s actions fall in the Chair’s lap. Once he assigns duties and approves the plan, Tim Nuse is the person to whom issues should be addressed. Blaming volunteers for something you didn’t like is misplaced. If we continue to smack our volunteers, people will stop volunteering.

    Tim needs to stand up to insider critics and fully support his volunteers. There is a very old rule: Praise in public, criticise in private.

  • WSB June 13, 2009 (12:10 am)

    Point of clarification, we do not have usernames in comments. Registration is only required for our forum area.

  • Christi Stapleton June 13, 2009 (1:11 am)

    @WSB

    Thanks.

  • Alcina June 13, 2009 (3:06 pm)

    I don’t have a problem with inviting everyone who filed to a Democratic Party forum, however, ALL candidates for ALL offices at this forum should have been asked in the lightning rounds if they are Democrats where they could only answer yes or no. Then there would have been no confusion as to who is or who isn’t a Democrat. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

  • Christi Stapleton June 13, 2009 (5:07 pm)

    @Alcina Good idea! I’ll pass it along for next time. That would solve a last minute rush to see who filed and who didn’t. We’re doing a “lessons learned” document, so keep the good ideas coming.

  • Bob Talcott June 14, 2009 (10:36 am)

    @Stephen Lamphear – posting uninformed garbage on a blog doesn’t make it true.

    Unlike previous so-called “reformist” commissioners, Creighton has actually been effective at pushing change at the Port of Seattle.

    When the port police email scandal came to light, he called for an independent investigation – opposed by the then CEO – that led to real change in the police department and that was lauded by the Department of Justice Community Liaison Office.

    http://www.cordant.com/article_archives/Port%20Commissioner%20Urges%20Investigation%20of%20e-mail%20Scandal.pdf

    When Pat Davis was discovered trying to stuff money into Mic Dinsmore’s pocket on his way out the door behind the backs of her fellow commissioners, Creighton was one of the loudest voices in condemning her actions

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/315672_port15.html

    http://www.seattlepi.com/business/312195_port19.html

    The Port still has a long ways to go, but it wasn’t until Creighton and Hara were elected that we have seen real, effective change at the Port.

  • Alcina June 14, 2009 (10:52 am)

    Christi, it seems like this needs to be addressed at the endorsement meeting, not just in a “lessons learned” document which might only be related to candidate forums in future years.

    How about doing this at the endorsement meeting?
    As part of their time, make every candidate seeking the District’s endorsement verbally state that night if they are a Democrat and only allow yes/no answers. It would also be very helpful to those attending to also have all the candidates be asked if they have ever endorsed or contributed to any candidates for any offices who are Republicans, including Republicans who have run for nonpartisan offices, and make them state that verbally with a yes/no answer.

  • Christi Stapleton June 14, 2009 (2:44 pm)

    @I’ll pass it along. Pretty good idea. May not be required, tho, unless their quesionnaires are unclear (diddn’t actually say YES) on the dem question. It also asks your question about endorsing contributing to non-dems and they have to answer yes or no and then explain. They can not get our endorsement if they are not dem and the KCDCC questionnaire is required to seek endorsement.

  • Stephen Lamphear June 14, 2009 (4:53 pm)

    @Bob Talcott — sticks & stones, garbage in garbage out. It was former Commissioner Alec Fisken who broke the silence of Port misconduct. And the voters chose a Republican to replace him. Hara’s interest in the Port has been junkets — he’s not a policy guy. If Gael Tarleton had more support, she could make change happen faster.

    Creighton’s King County Democrat questionnaire says he supports using public property to promote the Judeo-Christian religion. That is so offensive I can’t find words.

    I know these folks — I’ve been around a very long time!

  • Stephen Lamphear June 14, 2009 (5:10 pm)

    Oh, and Pat Davis didn’t/couldn’t act alone to fatten Mick Dinsmore’s wallet. It was a decision reached by the full commission in a secret executive session and Creighton was in the room. Somebody prove he didn’t support the action.

  • jeralyn June 15, 2009 (11:26 am)

    Stephen Lamphear:

    Creighton is pretty conservative and a status quo guy. Doud, Crieghton and Bryant are pretty clearly republicans. John was with Preston Gates and ellis (conservative) and donated bucks to bush, mccain and reichert.

  • WSB June 15, 2009 (10:47 pm)

    A note to those whose comments have not passed the filter.
    .

    WSB rules prohibit name-calling.
    .
    Criticize what is said, not the person saying it. Simplest example of what we mean: “You’re an idiot” is not acceptable. “Your idea is idiotic” is OK.
    .
    -TR

  • Bob Talcott June 15, 2009 (11:04 pm)

    @Stephen Lamphear –

    Again, posting uninformed statements on a blog doesn’t make them true. I would trust the good investigative reporting of Kristen Young, the port beat reporter for the Seattle P-I, before I would trust your statements on a blog unsubstantiated by any facts or citations.

    I posted the links to Kristen’s stories above, all you need to do is click on them to get the facts:

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/315672_port15.html

    http://www.seattlepi.com/business/312195_port19.html

    When Pat Davis was discovered trying to stuff money into Mic Dinsmore’s pocket on his way out the door behind the backs of her fellow commissioners, Creighton was the first and loudest voice in condemning her actions. According to Kristen’s article, his notes substantiate the fact that Davis did this behind the backs of her fellow commissioners. When Creighton, Hara and Fisken found out, they brought the matter out into the open to be voted down in public session.

    Creighton has been a strong, independent voice for policies truly serving the public interest. His website – http://www.johncreighton.org – states that he has been endorsed by a large number of Democrats across the County, as well as progressive organizations such as labor and the enviros.

    The Port still has a long ways to go, but it wasn’t until Creighton and Hara were elected that we have seen real, effective change at the Port. Alec Fisken voiced a lot of valid criticisms about the Port. But it took Creighton and Hara getting elected and doing the hard work to build coalitions to push forward reforms – such as a Commission audit committee, independent investigations overseen by the Commission, and stronger, more active Commission oversight – for us to start seeing some real, effective change at the Port.

  • WSB June 15, 2009 (11:21 pm)

    Another note.
    While we still have “blog” in our name because of this site’s opinionated origins, which we have left far behind, WSB is *not* a “blog.” It is a journalist-run, professional, commercial news website that publishes in blog format – which is all “blog” really means any more – a publishing format (newest item atop the main page, more-conversational writing, stories of widely varying length, etc.).
    .
    Whatever your characterization or interpretation of another commenter’s statements, they are posted on a news website, and should be considered the same as you would consider comments posted on any other news website, whether it is owned by corporate media or (like ours) grassroots independent neighborhood media. (In fact, as far as I can find from an online search, ours is the only news site that ran a full report on this candidates’ forum.)
    .
    99% of news websites offer a discussion option, and in fact, many corporate-media-operated sites have lower standards than ours – we don’t allow comment threads to devolve into name-calling, profane slime such as that you will often find on at least two corporate-owned news websites in this area (as well as some smaller ones).
    .
    Needed to make that correction. Thanks – TR

Sorry, comment time is over.