Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Seattle's "Cadillac" City Council's Arrogance & Obstruction
Tim Eyman / P-I reporter Neil Modie | Tim Eyman

Posted on 09/27/2003 3:13:50 PM PDT by webber

Cadillac Council's Arrogance & Obstruction

Letter from Tim Eyman, Anti-tax Guru of WA.

TO:  The 13 members of the Cadillac Council in King County (cc'd to all media outlets & our thousands of supporters statewide)

FROM: Tim Eyman
email: insignia@greekwatch.com

RE: Your arrogance and obstruction opened the floodgates

So now you've all begun the predictable and ineffective sky-is-falling political rhetoric about Initiative 18 (shrinks the Cadillac Council in King County from 13 politicians to nine, saving taxpayers $20 to $40 million over the next 10 years) and the Court's reaffirmation of the right of citizens to participate in the political process.

"I think it's a dark day for King County," said Councilman Dwight Pelz, D-Seattle, because the Supreme Court "has expanded the ability of the initiative process to erode government in Washington state."

"Who knows what's next ...?" said Councilman Larry Phillips, D-Seattle.  "... it makes it very difficult to effectively govern."

(insert by webber: No, it makes it difficult for you to govern like socialist/communists.)

It is your ongoing failure to effectively govern that makes Initiative 18 wildly popular with the people you supposedly represent.  It is your arrogance and obstruction that opened the floodgates to making charter changes by citizen initiative. 

From the day this ordinance was introduced by the late Kent Pullen, you all had the power to diffuse the public's justified frustration with your retain-power-at-any-cost attitude and your ivory tower elitism.  But you didn't.  You all cowered in the shadow of Prosecutor Norm Maleng as he wasted time, effort, and scarce tax dollars blocking the citizens' desire to enact this common sense reform.  Hiding behind Maleng was a naked display of political cowardice.  The next time you wonder why the public is so angry, just look in the mirror.

And now, you cowards actually have the audacity to publicly decry the Court's sweeping authorization for the people to decide what kind of government they want.  Cadillac Council chair Cynthia Sullivan, defeated because of her non-stop obstruction to this common sense reform, whined about implementing I-18 and said that they will "deal with the challenge the court has given us." 

It wasn't the court that told you to do this, it was the 71,000 King County citizens who voluntarily signed I-18 petitions.

It's incredibly gratifying to see your obstruction and arrogance rewarded with a policy that many of you viscerally oppose.  Not only will four of you be out of work as a result of I-18, I'm especially excited about this aspect of I-18 which is stated clearly in the Seattle PI's story below:

Passage of I-18 could force several council incumbents to run against each other for election to a reduced number of seats.

Competition -- an obviously scary concept to entrenched, you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours politicians on the Cadillac Council.

Who says you can't beat city hall?

Tim Eyman


State Supreme Court lets I-18 stand

By NEIL MODIE

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

(Insertion by Webber: The P-I is a very ultra-left-wing newspaper)(*means writer was editorializing in his "news coverage")

In a far-reaching decision that allows King County voters to amend the county charter by initiative, the state Supreme Court yesterday ordered onto the Nov. 4 ballot an initiative aimed at shrinking the County Council.

Proponents and opponents alike expressed little doubt that county citizens, seemingly in a mood for change, will vote overwhelmingly in favor of an *unusual, possibly confusing*, two-election process to reduce the council from 13 members to nine.

The unanimous decision, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, validated Initiative 18, sponsored by the King County Corrections Guild, a union of jail guards.  Under it, county voters will decide in November whether to order the council to put on the November 2004 ballot a proposed charter amendment to reduce the council size.

Supported by most of the council's Republican members and opposed by most of its majority Democrats, *the measure promises to bring political uncertainty to a council that in the past two years has operated with less partisan quarrelsomeness than it did previously.*

Some Democrats as well as some Republicans think it might improve GOP chances to end the Democrats' one-vote majority although Republican council members denied yesterday that they believed it would do so.

The King County Democratic Party has gone on record opposing reducing the council size. 

King County Republicans *have taken no position*, but county Chairwoman Pat Herbold said, "I think it does have pretty widespread support."

Bob Ferguson, a first-time Democratic candidate and supporter of a smaller council, advocated it in his successful campaign to defeat Council Chairwoman Cynthia Sullivan in last week's Democratic primary in the 2nd District of Northeast Seattle.  He said support for the idea was broad.

Passage of I-18 could force several council incumbents to run against each other for election to a reduced number of seats.

"The most troublesome part (of the Supreme Court opinion) is the ability to pay signature gatherers to change what amounts to the county's constitution through the initiative process," said Councilman Larry Phillips, D-Seattle.  Like many others, he believed that the charter didn't allow the charter to be amended through the initiative process.

"Who knows what's next via the paid signature-gathering process?" Phillips said. 

"We already have a budget crisis which lends tremendous instability to county government, and adding a governance crisis onto it makes it very difficult to effectively govern."

But Councilman David Irons Jr. (R) of Sammamish, one of three Republican co-sponsors of a proposed charter amendment to reduce the council size, applauded the decision, predicted that voters will pass I-18 by 70 percent, and said, "I think streamlining government is a worthwhile cause."

The Supreme Court opinion surprised even many supporters of the concept of a smaller council.  Some, like Councilman Rob McKenna of Bellevue, another co-sponsor of the council-reducing ordinance, which council Democrats have not allowed to come to a vote, had thought I-18 was legally flawed.

"I thought they would rule the other way," McKenna said.  But he said it was obvious from the unanimous decision and the relative brevity of the seven-page opinion "that the court thought it was a very clear issue."

"I think it's a dark day for King County," said Councilman Dwight Pelz, D-Seattle, because the Supreme Court "has expanded the ability of the initiative process to erode government in Washington state."

The Supreme Court rejected the contention of county Prosecutor Norm Maleng that only the County Council may propose amendments to the charter, which is the county's version of a constitution.

Unlike the state constitution, which gives the Legislature the exclusive authority to place proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot, the county charter does not restrict the people's authority to amend the county charter, the court said in an opinion written by Justice Charles Johnson.

"One of the foremost rights of Washington state citizens is the power to propose and enact laws through the initiative process," Johnson wrote.

He said the initiative power is limited to acts that are legislative in nature, and "although Initiative 18 is coined as an initiative proposal, it is legally equivalent to an ordinance proposal as it purports to follow the voter-initiated ordinance process" set forth in the county charter.

"It's an absolute win and now puts the power of King County government back in the hands of the people," said Jared Karstetter, an attorney for the Corrections Guild.  He said that because I-18 is "viscerally opposed by many members of the council, we are obviously concerned about retaliation against us."

I-18, however, was the guild's retaliation against the council, which last year reduced jail spending in the 2003 county budget in the process of trying to eradicate a $50 billion general fund deficit.

The guild has contended that reducing the council by four members would save as much as $4 million a year.  But council budget analysts have said it would reduce the budget by only $1.3 million, and that only one-third, or about $440,000, would be saved in the general fund, the general government operating fund where the budget crisis exists.

Despite the Supreme Court decision, another possible legal glitch remains in Initiative 18, but one that McKenna said can be remedied without jeopardizing the initiative.

The initiative provides that all nine of the reconstituted council seats would be up for election in 2005 after the county is divided into new districts, with five members elected to four-year terms and the other four members elected to two-year terms, in order to stagger future council elections.

The problem, said McKenna, is that six members, including himself, are standing for re-election this fall to four-year terms that wouldn't expire until the end of 2007.  "Under established constitutional law," said McKenna, a lawyer, "you cannot effectuate this change in a way that would affect current terms of incumbents.  So anyone elected in 2003 would have to (be able to) serve out that four-year term."

If I-18 passes, he said, the elections to some of the new council seats might have to be put off until 2007.


P-I reporter Neil Modie


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/27/2003 3:13:50 PM PDT by webber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: webber
The problem is, it's supposed to be the KING COUNTY Council, but is in fact, the downtown Seattle Council. Rural county residents' representatives are routinely outvoted by the downtown contingent. It's the old story of the city environmentalists deciding how the country folk should live. They want the country to be their playground, and when they come out for their Sunday bike rides, they want the roads free of rural residents, and the houses and barns painted only in colors they like.
2 posted on 09/27/2003 3:30:20 PM PDT by holyscroller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
What a wonderful thing to hear. Congratulations to the folks who helped put the Aristocrats in their place,
3 posted on 09/27/2003 5:14:58 PM PDT by Otis Mukinfus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
Good freakin' work! Knocking politicians off the public teat is God's work.
4 posted on 09/28/2003 12:40:43 AM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson