- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 12, 2009 at 7:20 pm #654338
JoBParticipantHMC Rich..
somehow i thought levity didn’t offend you …
democrats aren’t all dope smoking hippies either … or rampant do-gooders although our hearts do bleed :~>
While i truly enjoyed the links to the very opinionated Sound Politics… i was disappointed in the lack of depth even when i followed all of the links. At best, that article was dated innuendo piled on innuendo…
As for the Times article… did you notice that it did confirm the basic facts of Goldy’s article?
Goldy may have reported the news with a bias… but he didn’t fudge with the facts…
Political spin aside… David Irons was in a job he wasn’t qualified to hold because his daddy invested in the firm. He took advantage of insider information to use one of the firms assets to guarantee a loan he generated and then seized that asset at less than it’s value when the company couldn’t pay back the loan… after which he quit and raided the employees to service that asset from the company.
If a democrat did that… you would call foul immediately. Being a republican doesn’t make it any better no matter how the Times lauds piracy if it is committed by one of their own.
and you can’t have your cake and eat it too… blaming Huff in one post for the Diebold machines not being certified.. and then blaming her in another for the choice of Diebold machines … which aren’t certified yet (according to another of your links) in part because they are fixing what the article in your link blaming her for the choice said was the problem with Diebold machines…
Isn’t that just looking for anything to tar her with? She is being held responsible for the “sins” of a department she wasn’t part of when the “sins” were committed, being blamed for trying to rectify the situation, being blamed for placing the vote tabulating machines into open bid and eventually accepting the winning bid, being blamed for not getting the machines certified when part of the holdup is the company fixing the problems that generated the grumbling and the other part is the current republican administration’s unwillingness to fill the position of Elections head with someone the congress would ratify….
It sounds to me like she is doing a remarkable job in spite of circumstances out of her control.. not that she is creating any of those circumstances.
and yes… i acknowledge that my bias is showing:) but it’s the bias towards competence and not showmanship that is showing here.
Huff has paid her dues in local government, has years of experience with elections… and is doing a good job at her job…. even if she isn’t personally pleasing every pundit in town.
From the standpoint of a citizen hiring an Elections director on the basis of qualifications… not politics.. she is doing exactly what we hired her to do.. and doing it well.
so.. politics aside… why shouldn’t we retain someone who is doing the job well?
January 12, 2009 at 9:18 pm #654339
WSBKeymasterI haven’t read the entire thread but I believe this originally was about the Elections Director election. For those interested in that, this news release just landed in our inbox and I’m not likely to use it elsewhere, at least not right now.
SEATTLE – The Municipal League of King County today announced its ratings of the six
candidates for King County Elections Director to be selected by special election on
February 3:
Bill Anderson – Very Good
Chris Clifford – Adequate
Sherril Huff – Outstanding
David Irons – Outstanding
Julie Kempf – Adequate
Pam Roach – Adequate
The nonpartisan ratings are based on four criteria: Knowledge, Involvement,
Effectiveness and Character. The ratings assess each candidate’s potential to be
effective in office and ability to serve the community. They don’t consider
political affiliations or stands on specific issues. Candidates also aren’t rated
against each other.
“The League’s rating process is similar to a job interview for candidates,” said
Brad Meacham, Municipal League Chair. “Given the managerial requirements of the
Elections Director position, these ratings are especially useful.”
The ratings are the result of the work of citizens from around King County who
volunteered for a special Candidate Evaluation Committee over the last month. The
committee recognized that the Elections Director position requires strong
management, technical and leadership skills. Committee members were trained about
the requirements of the position and then studied the public record, reviewed
candidate questionnaires, checked references and conducted live interviews with the
candidates. Each rating was carefully reviewed and confirmed by the Municipal
League’s trustees.
Volunteers in the rating process are required to refrain from active involvement in
campaigns or political parties during this election season. The Municipal League’s
trustees must step aside from the ratings process whenever they have connections to
any candidate in any particular race.
Candidates received one of six ratings: Outstanding, Very Good, Good, Adequate, Not
Qualified, or No Active Campaign. The Municipal League was able to contact and
review every candidate.
To view candidate questionnaires and more detailed information about the rating
process, see http://www.munileague.org.
About the Municipal League ratings
Complete definitions of the ratings are available at http://www.munileague.org. Here are
abbreviated descriptions of each rating:
Outstanding – Has made numerous outstanding contributions requiring skills related
to the office, is a path-finding and respected leader, and brings knowledge and
creativity to issues facing the office.
Very Good – Makes significant contributions, is a skilled builder of consensus,
inspires confidence in the way he/she would serve, is thorough and attentive to
issues.
Good – Has been active and effective in many roles, is capable of moving people to
productive action, has strong record of participation in problem solving, shows
satisfactory commitment to tackling issues.
Adequate – Has a record of participation and interest, is effective on specific
issues, has provoked questions about suitability as an office holder, will need
significant time/energy to fill gaps in knowledge.
Not Qualified – Doesn’t appear engaged, has a record that casts doubt on ability to
be productive, hasn’t demonstrated ability to deal with responsibilities of office,
has narrow focus, inflexible attitude or is otherwise troubling.
January 12, 2009 at 9:21 pm #654340
AnonymousInactiveInteresting. Thanks TR
January 12, 2009 at 9:25 pm #654341
charlabobParticipantYes, thanks TR — the sentence I find most interesting:
“The ratings are the result of the work of citizens from around King County who
volunteered for a special Candidate Evaluation Committee over the last month.”
January 12, 2009 at 10:33 pm #654342
JoBParticipantTR…
thanks.. this is outstanding!
I encourage everyone who is actually interested in these candidates to go further than the recommendations and follow the link to http://www.munileague.org/ and keep clicking until you come to the actual questionnaires that the candidates submitted… which are the basis for the recommendations…
what an incredible opportunity to look at actual job applications and make informed decisions based on them…
I read both candidates questionnaires and was struck by the differences…
David Irons posts co-owner and CEO of his parent company on his current resume for this position…
That makes me wonder how well he understands techonology since he must have been aware of the expose written about his tenure in his parent’s company that directly quoted his parents describing him as a mechanic…
if he is well versed in technology he should have known how easy it is for that information to be found… it doesn’t appear as though resume padding serves him well here on more than one count…
and it makes me wonder how well this group checked references..
but what struck me most was the depth of Sherril Huff’s answers to questions regarding the function of the Director of Elections and the expertise she exhibited about the actual elections process here in King County and the current issues facing our elections dept.
Did you know that she has the department well on the way to getting the highest certification available for an elections organization??? …
and that King County might well be the first department in the United States to achieve that goal?
Follow the links to what it takes to get that certification.. and i think you will be impressed.
did you know that she has served as an elections auditor as well as elections director? That’s like having been both a prosecuting attorney and a defense attorney… having worked on both sides of the election process gives her a unique perspective on the big picture when it comes to election excellence…
some of which she has already brought to the transition of our elections dept.
The bottom line is that Sherril Huff is already doing the job that David Irons envisions on his questionnaire.. and doing it well.
Even if we had no questions about David Irons managerial skills… which i do…
we would still be left asking ourselves why we would want to replace someone who is doing this job so effectively with someone who thinks they might do it well?
Our elections process is not the right place for David Irons to get on the job training…
it’s too important!
January 12, 2009 at 10:54 pm #654343
beachdrivegirlParticipant“Eleven years ago I founded a cutting edge technology company. This company grew to
provide services in six states from Washington to Ohio. We provided cutting edge
technology to convention centers. This required us to install a new computer and phone
network every four to seven days then remove most of the installation. We were required to
meet and/or exceed a 99.99% success rate which we did. Growing a high tech company
while providing the highest level of customer service that become one of the leaders in our
industry was most rewording. In 2007 I received two unsolicited offers to purchase my
company, in October 2007 the company was sold to our chief competitor. The company that
purchased my company hired me to remain on as CEO for one year to facilitate the merger
of the two companies.”–> here is some Irons technological experience for those that would like to learn open mindedly about both candidates. IMO, this is proof that David Irons would not be getting “on teh job training” he doesnt need it.
January 12, 2009 at 11:15 pm #654344
AnonymousInactive“Our elections process is not the right place for David Irons to get on the job training…” – JoB
“On-the-job-training” was sufficient for the position of President, why is it not okay for Irons?
January 12, 2009 at 11:25 pm #654345
JoBParticipantto rephrase that blurb written by David Irons in terms more consistent with the revelations from Goldy’s investigation in 2005…
:)))
eleven years ago i forced the company i was working with to divest it’s assets in a high technology company (providing internet access to vendors at the coliseum) by floating them a loan that i knew they couldn’t repay and seizing their asset as collateral…
i was able to hire away the personnel who ran that asset and they did an admirable job of running that asset for me…
i believe in inspiring others and a hands off management style…
it really helped that dad and my attorney sister had the old company by the … well you know.. they are able to ensure that they were cooperative and i wasn’t prosecuted.
Heck, dad was more than glad for me to have a company of my own that would support me if i let it run itself… captive markets are a good thing…
since my new company had only assets and income, my employees were able to expand our business into several states.
When the new technology of wifi began to intrude drastically on my business which relied on hard wire internet connections, i was able to sell the contracts i had with several facilities and didn’t have to face the transition into new technology..
and i got a sweetheart deal in the process.. i negotiated to keep my position and salary for a year!
I have proved that i am perfectly capable of leaving a company alone and letting good people manage it… and that i know how to negotiate a good deal when things don’t work out so well for me…
:)))
there is always more than one possible interpretation of events.. and the truth probably lies somewhere between those two…
the open minded way to analyze the two candidates is to read both their applications…
then ask yourself who is more qualified for the job at hand… Director of Elections…
January 12, 2009 at 11:36 pm #654346
beachdrivegirlParticipantWell NR we all know that the president really isnt that important… you should have known that by now.
January 12, 2009 at 11:38 pm #654347
ZenguyParticipantI agree Jo. After reading that article on Irons, complete with comments from Mom and Sis, I would not hire Irons to walk my dog.
January 12, 2009 at 11:43 pm #654348
JoBParticipantJanuary 12, 2009 at 11:45 pm #654349
JoBParticipantJanuary 13, 2009 at 2:53 am #654350
JoBParticipantit is really too easy for the real issues to get lost in the tit for tat exchange that centers on opinions.
what is at issue in the next election is who will be our director of elections.. who will be responsible for making sure that the mechanics of a fair and free election are carried out in such a way that the outcome is not in question when we have a tight race.
This is a lot more complicated than it looks… especially with the expectations of nearly instantaneous results.
TR posted a site with an incredible amount of information that will help you make up your own mind who should be our next director of elections..
if you keep clicking the links on this election.. 2009.. director of elections.. you will eventually come to links to both their websites and the applications they submitted that were the basis of the evaluation that generated the recommendations.
Please take the time to read the complete applications for both of the leading applicants…
and then ask yourself.. personalities aside.. politics aside.. if you were responsible for hiring one of those two applicants.. who would you hire?
your vote does matter on this one…
January 13, 2009 at 8:11 pm #654351
JoBParticipantbump… i just want to remind you to do something with that ballot when it shows up in the mailbox besides recycling:)
January 14, 2009 at 12:17 am #654352
HMC RichParticipantHello. Hey, JoB, I am definitely not offended, “somehow i thought levity didn’t offend you”. But I will be offended if those hippies use bad or homegrown stuff!!! (Although I do not advocate that type of recreation).
No, my Right Wing rants, not my opinions, are just for fun and are used to rile, tweak, stereotype or if at all possible make ’em chuckle. As you notice, down at the bottom of one of my posts I really do want us to get along.
Ditto 63 and 64. Couldn’t see 62.
January 14, 2009 at 3:58 am #654353
JoBParticipantHMCRich…
i killed 62 because what i had to say might not have been so conducive to us “all” getting along…
i really do try to monitor my mouth…
sometimes my frustration gets the better of me:(
January 15, 2009 at 5:20 am #654354
flowerpetalMemberToday (Wednesday) is 20 days out before the election and we all should’ve received our ballots in the mail 20 days before. We were delivered the election handbook but not the ballots.
I hope these are not delayed too much. It would look bad for the “incumbent” if a delay occurred in the election she is hoping to win.
Did anyone receive their ballot yet? When did you get it?
January 15, 2009 at 8:13 am #654355
JanSParticipantflowerpetal…I was wondering the same thing…I have the voters pamphlet…guess they’re giving me time to read it before the ballot gets here ;-)
January 15, 2009 at 12:44 pm #654356
c@lbobMemberThe ballots went to the USPS Wednesday, Jan. 14, you should get yours before the 20th. If you don’t call 206-296-VOTE (296-8683) or 800-325-6165. In past elections, I usually get mine the day after the mailing, so I’m expecting it today.
The law for mailing ballots is 18 days prior to election day:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29a.40.070
But the calendar that the Secretary of State puts out is how county auditors set their deadlines:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/calendar.aspx
So you see, King County beats the legal deadline by 2 days. They’ve done so ever since the fiasco in 2002 general elections when thousands of ballots were sent out late. Since then the electios department has done, literally, everthing possible to get ballots out on time. Many elections workers worked a 7:00 AM to 2:00 AM shift (that’s 19 hours) to make sure the deadline was met in 2006. It was sad that 400 that had to be hand stuffed went out 2 hours late because a computer file was delayed, but it was a pretty good performance, and the state deadline was met in any case.
By the was, it was Julie Kempf who got fired for the 2002 ballot screw up, just in case you were thinking of voting for her. She was then the Superintendant of Elections.
Mark your ballots of Sherril Huff and mail them or take them to a ballot drop box. Keep KC Elections on the right track.
January 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm #654357
TrisketParticipantVote David Irons!
January 15, 2009 at 2:00 pm #654358
c@lbobMemberTrisket has it right, all you Toby Nixon fans should split your votes among Irons, Roach, et al.
Those of you who want an elections department run properly should vote for Sherril Huff!
January 15, 2009 at 5:58 pm #654359
KenParticipantDemocrats and reasonable people, lets do a little math.
This election is a bit different from others in that there is no primary and there will be no runoff.
A plurality of the votes are required and will define the winner.
There might be 4 self identified Democrats and 2 Republicans (or one neocon and one bull goose loon) but the key here is not to spread the Democratic vote out among the candidates.
A wingnut could win this with 21% of the vote if we spread 80% of the votes among 4 “Dems” at 20% each.
This is why we fought this thing in November. It was designed and propagandized as if it was “only fair” to make it a non partisan elected position. In reality is is the only way to allow a wingnut into a position where we can see our election laws bent and twisted and watch wholesale disenfranchisement on the Republican model tilted into the courts which are already infested with “non partisan” BIWA and US Chamber of Commerce backed wingnuts.
A court case, even if it is found in our favor, would be too late to alter the outcome.
So mark your ballot for Sherril Huff and go on about your preparations for the coming republican great depression, secure in the knowledge that your King County elections administrator will be working to keep your vote secure, relevant and counted correctly.
January 15, 2009 at 6:15 pm #654360
JoBParticipantI still say that if you look at the qualifications of the applicants.. instead of at their political affiliation.. you will find that there really is one candidate whose qualifications are far greater than any other… and she is already doing the job well.
would i say the same if she was a republican?
if she was doing the same job that Sherril Huff was doing.. then yes, i would say the same.
I would really love to see King Country achieve the highest standard awarded for election excellence and the high achiever in me would be tickled if we were the first election district in the nation to earn that certification.
The citizen in me would rest easier knowing that the party affiliation of a candidate could not affect the election process itself… that a candidate from either party would have to win in a fair and honest election.
I hope that is a bipartisan goal we could all agree on.
if not… there really isn’t so much hope for democracy.
January 15, 2009 at 10:17 pm #654361
JanSParticipantmy ballot showed up today…will be returned immediately :)
January 16, 2009 at 1:37 am #654362
flowerpetalMemberMy ballot showed up today too. Yeah Sherril!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.