Lack of oversight, competition leads to questionable Chamber choice

To the Editor: 


I read something confusing in last Thursday's Daily Record. It said economic development (EDD) director Ron Cridlebaugh had taken a job in Douglas County, effective the very next day. David Bowen had been appointed to take over Mr. Cridlebaugh’s duties. Mr. Bowen had very recently – and just as quietly -- been appointed to operate the Central Washington Renewable Energy Collaborative (CWREC).



Those are the peculiar facts as reported. Here's some of what I understand about the background of the situation.

When Mr. Cridlebaugh was hired, the Chamber made a big deal about its search -- it might even have been a national search -- for someone with strong economic development credentials. By lucky coincidence, the very best candidate was right here in economically depressed Ellensburg.

Mr. Bowen, now appointed to both the EDD and the CWREC jobs, has a checkered history in the county and currently owns Mike’s Tavern in Cle Elum.¹

The Chamber of Commerce is a private organization that can (and, as seen here, does) do whatever it wants without regard to what anyone else might think or what might actually make sense.

The Chamber would not be able to operate without substantial public funding, and it has positioned itself to play the key role in economic development and other activities for the entire county.

Now, in case they are not already obvious, some confusing things.

CWREC and economic development are being combined. This is a big change, so why is this decision not being explained?² Is this move the reason an actual economic development professional is suddenly not needed? Or has the title simply been changed?

For Mr. Bowen, there is a clear conflict of interest with the Teanaway solar reserve project, among others.³ TSR is opposed by its neighbors and requires subsidies to make up for its poor location.⁴ The Chamber knows all this. Why does it not care?

The Chamber will no doubt take it upon itself to lead an effort to establish a port district in Ellensburg. A port district is potentially a good thing, but why should taxpayers support it if this is the way the economic development show is run here?

Finally, how could the Daily Record’s related editorial have been so uncritical? It simply rehashed information from the news item.

We have seen how trust matters. Trust is an issue here too, with both the newspaper and the Chamber.

---

¹On the matter of Mr. Bowen's checkered past, there is the time he accepted a full-time (and apparently unadvertised) job with PSE while still a full-time county commissioner, something disclosed only after the fact. This was another conflict of interest issue, since county commissioners made many decisions before and after this time that affected PSE and PSE's major customers. The move drew at least one interesting letter to the editor. Then there's the fact that Bowen and his fellow commissioners made a series of bone-headed land development decisions and laid the foundation for the county's ongoing problems with the state GMA (over land use) and DOE (over water use). There is not room for a more extensive list.

²Since neither activity has produced much in the way of results, how will combining them yield something greater than the sum of the parts? Instead of addition, might it not be more like multiplying by zero?

³Until recently Mr. Bowen worked for American Forest Land Company (AFLC), which had planned a large development in the Teanaway area; the Teanaway solar reserve project was related to the development plan, and is still on the drawing board even though AFLC has sold most of their land.

⁴I had forgotten how many blog posts I have written about TSR. Here is a particularly relevant one.

Thoughts on I-522

Yesterday, I went to hear Howard Vlieger, who introduces himself as a 3rd-generation family farmer from Iowa, speak about genetically modified organisms. His visit to Ellensburg was organized by Yes on I-522 groups, but Mr. Vlieger himself avoided opportunities to take a position on the initiative, he just shared his view of GMOs.

Before I go on, I should note that I have a Ph.D in plant molecular biology from Oregon State University. I have carried out molecular biology research, made genetically modified organisms, taught about molecular biology and genetic engineering, published a paper about molecular biology education. I left the American Society of Plant Biologists because of its cozy relationship with Monsanto and because the ASPB was too willing to overstate the agronomic importance of plant genetic engineering. I was also disappointed that it took so long for true feed-the-world genetic engineering projects, like yellow rice, to get started. I don't avoid any GMO foods except milk produced with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). I feel well qualified to have opinions about this general topic.

Anyway, I went with an open mind to hear Mr. Vlieger speak, and I heard a few things that gave me pause. Most of what he had to say was anecdotal -- difficult to ignore, but necessary to ignore.

However, he did organize and see through to publication an interesting study connecting stomach inflammation in pigs with exposure to genetically modified corn and soybean feed (here's a link to his paper, scroll down to page 38). I read the paper, and found the research quite well-done. The trial included an appropriately large number of animals, and neither the workers at the piggery nor the veterinarians who examined the pigs' organs after slaughter knew which feed the pigs were being fed. (By the way, if you do read the paper, take a look the section on lungs in Table 3. The rate of pneumonia in both populations is the scariest thing in the paper.)¹

So, fair enough, for some reason it seems GM soy and/or corn may increase rates of stomach inflammation in pigs. Some members of my family are having problems with their digestive systems, so I filed this away as something to mention to them, and I kept reading.

For what it's worth, it turns out Mr. Vlieger is not a totally disinterested citizen farmer. He is the co-founder of Verity Farms, which makes a variety of products targeted at the sustainably minded consumer and producer market. The company is literally a corporate farm, listed as VRTY on the OTCQB. Now, it's basically a penny stock, going public is a fine way to raise capital, and I don't really think any of this is especially important, I just think it should be noted for the sake of transparency. It does seem likely that Verity Farms stands to benefit from heightened concern about GMOs.

Back to I-522. It's no secret that the approach Monsanto and other ag-biotech companies have taken to dealing with public concerns has been heavy-handed and stupid. I was involved in early Internet discussions of this about 20 years ago (Google my last name and the name of the biggest, stupidest ag-biotech company). I think that, in principle, it would be a good idea to label GMO-containing foods, which is pretty much all of them at the moment. On the other hand, it's already easy to avoid GMOs by eating locally produced foods (ask the grower if you're curious about GMO-ness) and organic foods.

I'm still open to changing my mind in response to new information, but today I'm leaning toward voting no on I-522. The problem is that labeling may be a good idea, but it's not free. Someone has to pay for it. None of us would mind paying for it if it was unusually important that we know the GMO status of a food item, or if there was no other way to avoid GMOs, but this isn't the case.

Finally, for those of you who have read this far, especially people who are inclined to be activists on important issues, please consider including climate change, local politics, and the looming military action in Syria on your lists of issues worthy of your time and energy.

---

¹Note added 10/4/13: A reader has brought to my attention this explanation of possibly fishy statistics in the paper.

Things to Remember About Manweller and his Defenders

To the Editor,

Once Representative-elect Matt Manweller assumes office (after the election is certified on December 6, not when he’s sworn in¹), it will be important to respect the office² and try to help him do the best possible job for his district.³

But even after he takes office, it will be important to be wary of the fact that Manweller embodies the negative aspects of his party that were soundly rejected by the country as a whole in the last election: arrogance, dishonesty, extreme partisanship, gross disrespect of women, mindless dogmatism, cronyism.^4,5

It will also be important to remember that the local Republican Establishment has brought us a man who, in addition to the above, is credibly accused of actions at which the newspaper won’t even let me hint (which is why everyone should read the Manweller Report).^6,7 There are decent, traditional Republicans who are as outraged about this as anyone else.

Meanwhile, Dr. Manweller’s (and CWU's, come to think of it) thoroughly unconvincing defense is based on bluster and technicalities. And for someone who claims to be innocent, he has certainly fought hard to keep the Manweller Report secret.

One striking thing about all this is the number of people who are willing to publicly defend Manweller. Would these same defenders really be willing to send their daughters to be Manweller’s students or his legislative pages or staffers?

“Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal idea. Manweller apparently hasn’t yet broken any laws, he’s just committed one of the worst ethical crimes possible for an educator. It's a matter of character, not law.

What Manweller did is plain to see for anyone who reads the report. For a retired professional educator like Jimmie Applegate to defend him is particularly disappointing.

For an annotated version of this letter, see whathappensinthecourthouse.blogspot.com .

---

¹The Daily Record article about the swearing-in is here.
²Oh, dear. Try Googling "respecting the office" without the quotation marks, or just click here. If I had done this before I submitted the letter, I might have used a different phrase.
³I am dead serious about this. Representative Manweller will be 1/3 of our representation in Olympia. I will continue to criticize him and the Kittitas County Republican Party (which he until recently chaired) and call attention to his behavior as a CWU professor, but I will not do anything to undermine his effectiveness in Olympia. I hope everyone will join me in this.
⁴While the national Republican party rethinks everything, the local Republican Party has doubled down on Newt Gingrich-style politics. 
⁵For one example of thoughtful conservative soul-searching, see this piece at the American Conservative.
⁶Given the makeup of the 13th Legislative District, it is doubtful voters will remove Dr. Manweller. Only his party can do it. Will they? Time will tell.
⁷See also my earlier posts on this scandal, including "The Manweller Report." To read the Manweller Report itself, click here. The body of the report is only 18 pages long, starting on page 7 of the linked document.

A Manweller Morning After

Note: the letter published in the Daily Record is slightly different from the one I originally submitted. The newspaper requested that I remove the portions shown in bold below. ⁰

The days after the election dawn chill for local Republicans. The only positive election outcome for them is the election of Matt Manweller, about which they must pretend to be pleased. Meanwhile, consequences of mismanagement by county commissioners are still mostly in the future, complicating 2014 election prospects for Obie O’Brien.^1,2

In his day job, Professor Manweller is embroiled in a sex-for-grades scandal. Now we can focus on what is important: CWU’s past, present and future handling of this scandal.^3,4

Manweller has been credibly accused of trading grades for sexual favors from students, of threatening students’ careers in an effort to keep secrets, and of stalking at least one student after graduation.⁵ According to the Manweller Report, his behavior was well known among students and CWU administrators and staff.⁶

Readers may find the details hard to believe, which is why everyone should read the Manweller Report for themselves.

One would think that it would be a mortal sin to trade grades for sexual favors. Manweller has failed his academic field and his colleagues at CWU and beyond. He has failed his department and Central Washington University. Most of all, of course, he has failed his students, and he has failed past and future graduates of CWU generally. His failure of his political supporters and of his party and new constituents is the least of it.

CWU has failed, too. The magnitude of CWU’s failure is virtually incalculable. Female victims learned not to look to institutions for help. Any students who might have played along with Manweller's alleged scheme learned that academic excellence is optional. Political science degrees from CWU are cheapened.

One would think that it would be a mortal sin to trade grades for sexual favors, but at campuses across the country, it isn’t.⁷

Here's the challenge, which we see in the most recent news reports: CWU isn't any more interested than Professor Manweller is in addressing these problems. CWU is in damage control mode, even as parents and students are working on their college applications for the 2013-14 school year.⁸

Professor Manweller has made a political career of claiming that he's a persecuted conservative in supposedly liberal academia. If nothing else, this case indicates the exact opposite: CWU avoided acting earlier, and avoids acting now, because of his political activities, not in spite of them.

For an annotated version of this letter, and a link to the Manweller Report, see whathappensinthecourthouse.blogspot.com .

Steve Verhey
Ellensburg

---

⁰I pointed out that all information in the paragraph had already been published, but they were unmoved.
¹Interestingly, Manweller's support is lowest in Kittitas County, where his margin was about 60:40. In Grant County, it was 72:28, and in Lincoln County it was 77:23.
²A few quick examples of mismanagement: forcing the Upper County well moratorium instead of working with DOE for a job-saving compromise, continuing to drag out compliance with the Growth Management Act, skimming money from the hotel/motel tax to pay for the ill-fated work on the Armory, allowing multimillion dollar home construction in a fire-prone area without a Code-compliant exit road, use of road tax funds to balance the General Fund.
³Pre-election complaints about supposed political motivation were themselves politically motivated. The original student reports were not politically motivated, and nothing changes the reality and gravity of them.
⁴As one student I talked to observed, the reason the students didn't pursue formal complaints is that "they didn't feel CWU had their backs."
⁵ In the Manweller Report, the investigator uses the word "credible" to refer to all witnesses. The word is noticeably absent in describing Dr. Manweller's participation.
⁶While these details are technically allegations, a reasonable reader of the Manweller Report -- as opposed to Manweller or CWU spin -- will find it quite convincing. The body of the report is only 17 pages (double-spaced), and everyone should read it for themselves.
⁷There have been numerous news items and longer reports about this problem. Here's a sampling of articles about unsatisfactory college responses to sexual harassment: Naomi Wolf's "Sex and Silence at Yale," about faculty-on-student behavior and reporting; an article about student-on-student sexual harassment at Amherst. It is worth noting that Manweller's actions are far more serious than the sex scandal currently being played out in the national news, because of the asymmetric power relationship between faculty and students, and the trading of anything but academic performance for grades.
⁸Here's an excellent example of CWU spin: compare this article, in the Yakima Herald-Republic, to the last paragraph of the text of the Manweller Report.

CWU Sexual Harassment Policies and Reporting

A recent anonymous commenter shared her experience of unwanted sexual attention from Professor Manweller:

Several years ago Manweller made unwanted sexual advances towards me. At the time I wasn't aware of his "history" of preying on young women. Had I known I would have been more likely to report the incident and would have avoided ever interacting with him. Instead, I had felt embarrassed and upset and didn't tell anyone. I had let it go until I heard about this report. I don't think he believes there is anything wrong with his behavior. He prioritizes his desires over any kind of ethical code. I read the report and would agree with the woman's statement that he is intelligent, manipulative, and sexually aggressive. I don't want to provide any more details and still do not want to come forward or make any kind of formal complaint or accusation. Part of me wants to come forward to strengthen the case against Manweller, but at this point I haven't been able to convince myself to do it. I do wish the university had done its job 6 years ago, it would have likely prevented this incident from occurring, either because Manweller would have been disciplined or because I would have been aware of his behavior and would have avoided contact with him.¹

There is no way to know how many stories like this might be out there, both among current and former CWU students and among members of the larger Ellensburg community and beyond, and it's not clear whether this commenter is/was a CWU student. But it's worth looking at CWU's sexual harassment policy, and whether there have been any changes as a result of recent events.

A search on the phrase "sexual harassment" at CWU's web page turns up a number of hits, most of which are frankly not going to be useful to one of Professor Manweller's victims. 

Here's an example: the CWU Status of Women Commission's web page on sexual harassment (shown above, click on the image to go there) features four links to "Resources." Seems promising, right? But the first link leads CWU policy verbiage that even I don't have patience to read.

And the other three links are broken.

The CWU Diversity Center's page on sexual harassment is more useful. It features quotes from students describing sexual harassment, and a link titled "report an incident." The quotes even include one about improper faculty behavior, but you have to scroll down to see it. And the report-an-incident link goes to a page that requires the user to log in. It seems to me that it would be nice to offer a way for people like the anonymous commenter to make an initial inquiry, maybe as a step toward talking to someone who can help.

Considering the very real problem of sexual harassment that the Manweller Report describes, one would expect CWU to redouble -- and redouble again -- its efforts to help students who may be victims.

But there's another problem, which we see in the most recent news reports: CWU isn't any more interested than Professor Manweller is in addressing these problems.² CWU is in damage control mode, even as parents and students are working on their college applications for the 2013-14 school year.

More on all that later, maybe. Meanwhile, I'm giving CWU's sexual harassment reporting system a D+.

¹This was the fourth comment to my "The Manweller Report" post. Two subsequent posters urged her to report Professor Manweller, which can be done, if not anonymously, very discreetly.
²See, for example, "CWU Official: Manweller Probe Reveals No Wrongdoing," in the Yakima Herald-Republic. Make your own decision on whether the probe reveals wrongdoing by reading the report for yourself -- the body of the report is only 17 pages long.

Daily Record Editorial on Manweller

It is probably in the nature of small-town newspapers to be cautious about volatile issues involving the largest employer in town and charismatic public figures. Even so, the Daily Record's editorial about the Manweller Report is pretty damning, as far as it goes.^1,2

As I read the editorial, it became clear that it is much simpler to ignore the election and assume Professor Manweller will be elected, then look at his academic life and his life as a State Representative, and at CWU past and present. This removes the irrelevant but confusing concerns about any political motivation of the investigation.

Ethical professional educators will recognize -- and citizens need to understand -- that there is absolutely nothing worse than trading grades for sexual favors. Manweller has failed his academic field and his colleagues at CWU and beyond. He as failed his department and Central Washington University. Most of all, of course, he has failed his students, and he has failed recent past and near future graduates of CWU generally.

Professor Manweller has said that he will continue as a CWU faculty member, taking leaves of absence as necessary for his duties in Olympia. He will continue to be a well-known sexual predator, and his long pattern of preying on students will either stop or, more likely, not stop. In an era of belated attention to sex abuse on campuses (former Penn State President Graham Spanier was indicted just the other day for his role in the Sandusky scandal), this is a remarkable and most unfortunate outcome.

Depending on how well newspapers like the Daily Record do their jobs, Representative Manweller's history of trading sexual favors for grades will follow him to Olympia either as rumors or as well-known alarms. Fellow legislators and citizens alike will unavoidably think, when seeking help from Representative Manweller, about the diversity of bargaining options Manweller might consider.

The point that the Daily Record's editorial makes most clearly is CWU's enormous failure to protect students from Professor Manweller for over half a decade. The magnitude of this failure is virtually incalculable. Female victims learned not to look to institutions for help. Students who participated in Manweller's scheme learned that academic excellence is optional. The list could go on and on.

Professor Manweller has made a political career of claiming that he's a persecuted conservative in supposedly liberal academia. If nothing else, this case suggests the exact opposite: CWU avoided acting because of his political activities, not in spite of them.

¹Everyone should read the Manweller Report. The body of the report is only 17 pages long. You can read it here.
²This important editorial should be available free to anyone interested in reading it. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall. Here is a link to it.

The Manweller Report

It's no secret that Matt Manweller isn't one of my favorite people, or that he and I are generally on opposite sides of the political fence. But CWU's report on his behavior toward female students transcends politics.

A little background: I taught at CWU for six years, from 1999-2005. Dr. Manweller arrived at CWU in 2003, and we had little or no professional interaction during our two-year overlap. I was denied tenure and left academia in 2005 (a senior administrator told me, "I don't know what you did, but you really pissed off your department"), and Dr. Manweller was granted tenure in 2008.

CWU's report about Dr. Manweller's sexual harassment is all over the newspaper web sites, or you can read it here. I've only read it once, quickly, and I don't have much desire to read it again, but everyone should read it.

I didn't hear any rumors about Dr. Manweller's behavior while I was at CWU, but I did have a female student come into my office once and say, "I'd do anything to get an A in this class." I jumped up, opened my office door wide, and told the student she really didn't mean that.

I was a little upset by this experience. After she left, I wondered what she had meant, and, if she meant what she might have meant, where did she get the idea to say such a thing? Maybe from Dr. Manweller, who really did exchange grades for sexual favors. He really did threaten a student's career if she told anyone about this. More than one student did tell someone in a position of authority about Dr. Manweller's behavior, years before he was given tenure, but it was the CWU's policy at the time to ignore complaints if they weren't formally submitted in writing. CWU failed those students, and for all we know is still failing students.

I was raised as a professional educator to believe that you don't trade anything but excellent student academic performance for an A, and to believe that you should do everything you can to ensure your students' success. In other words, I believe that one has a duty to one's profession and to one's students.

That's why Dr. Manweller's behavior is so repugnant. If a proper investigation had been carried out at the time -- 2006 -- of the first documented allegations, he would have had zero chance at tenure. Instead, here's what he got away with:

• Trading grades for sexual favors from students and having this behavior be widely known among students;
• Directly threatening at least one student's career, and indirectly forcing an unknown number of students to remain silent to protect their careers;
• Stalking at least one student by finding her mother's phone number (possibly from university records, to which he would have had access) and calling her mother in an effort to arrange an assignation after the student graduated;
• Initiating physical contact with female students that some students found uncomfortable;
• Lying to an investigator by saying he didn't know the accuser, who had been in several of his classes and for whom he had written a letter of recommendation.

Politics has nothing to do with this. I would feel the same way about a Democrat who was a close friend (by the way, I am disappointed by the way this was handled by the Chair of Manweller's department, who happens to be a Democrat). I would not publicly defend such a person, as some are doing. I would urge a such a political candidate to withdraw from an election, and that's what I'm doing here.¹

An elected representative has citizens come into their office asking for all sorts of things. How could a Representative Manweller really serve his district if citizens don't know what they might be asked to do in exchange for help?


¹I've just sent an e-mail to Dr. Manweller with a link to this post.^2
2He replied within minutes, writing, "Nobody else reads it, why would I?"

Manweller v. CWU

This morning I took the opportunity to go to a hearing to determine the fate of public records requests by the Yakima Herald Republic and the Ellensburg Daily Record. The records -- or, record, singular -- relates to an investigation by CWU of Professor Manweller after a sexual harassment complaint by a female student in 2006.

Before I go on, it's worth noting that this subject is timely: just the other day the New York Times did a major article on how poorly colleges perform when asked to investigate sexual misconduct against female students.

I had only read about this local matter in the local newspapers, but as discussed in court here's apparently what happened: late in the summer someone suggested to one or both newspapers that they might be interested in something that happened to Professor Manweller at his institution in 2006. The papers contacted CWU, CWU looked at their records and discovered that they had not done a proper/formal investigation in 2006. So CWU carried out, six years later, an investigation and found that there was not enough evidence of wrongdoing.¹

Neither of the attorneys at the hearing disputed the facts in the previous paragraph, but Professor Manweller has been working to see that the record of the belated investigation not be released -- hence his request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which had been granted and was the subject of today's hearing.

As near as I could tell, Professor Manweller's attorney argued to continue the TRO on these grounds:

1. The law (an RCW or WAC whose citation I didn't catch) clearly states that a request for public records has to be made using the form provided by the agency to which the request is directed. Because the newspapers didn't use the form, no public records request had been made, and there was nothing further to discuss.²
2. The investigation was politically motivated.
3. Although the investigation found no wrongdoing, it does contain details, hearsay, and [my word here:] sordidness, so it should not be released.

CWU's attorney, from the state Attorney General's office, noted that

1. CWU doesn't particularly want to release the record, because it will not cast CWU in a good light.³ However, CWU has been asked for it, and has a responsibility to release it.
2. The lack of use of the proper form isn't a serious problem, since in practice forms are routinely not required (Judge Sparks agreed, noting that citizens should be helped to get, not hindered from getting, public documents).
3. The key argument was this: this court doesn't have jurisdiction over public records requests, but the plaintiff (Manweller) brought the case here because he'd knew he'd lose in the proper court.
4. Further, while not proceeding as appropriate under the Public Records Act, the plaintiff is trying to invoke the Public Records Act.

After talking about how important public records -- and also privacy -- are, Judge Sparks said he understood Manweller's motivation of block release. He said that he trusts the newspapers to act with discretion, as they do every day in their work. Judge Sparks ordered that the TRO be dissolved, and said CWU could proceed to release the results of the investigation with the name of the student redacted.

¹If memory serves, none of the administrators (Dean of the College of the Sciences, Provost, President) in the appropriate chain of command are still at CWU, so the present administrators inherited this one. ²You can't make this stuff up. As I listened I wondered whether Manweller really wanted to win on such a flimsy technicality. ³Again, see the NYT article on how poorly these things are handled, even at fancy schools like Amherst. The NYT article is mostly about student-on-student misconduct. Imagine how a lesser college might handle a complaint against a pugnacious, outspoken, politically problematic tenured faculty member.

Vote Clerf for Commissioner -- Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

This year I have been spending my political volunteer¹ energy on the race for Kittitas County Commissioner, District 1. I have been working with Catherine Clerf, who is running against incumbent Paul Jewell.

Both are Republicans, and Catherine is actually more conservative than Jewell. Why would I support her? There are reasons for almost everyone to support her.

All county residents will appreciate that Catherine knows more about how county government works than does any other private citizen. She has attended almost as many county meetings as the commissioners themselves, starting before Jewell was elected. In many areas, she knows more than the sitting county commissioners.

Here’s an important example: Catherine is right, and Paul Jewell is wrong, on the water and well moratorium issues.² Jewell inherited this problem when he was elected, and could have been a voice of reason in a difficult situation. Instead, he forced the Department of Ecology to use the big stick of the upper county moratorium, a choice that laid the foundation for the proposed county-wide well moratorium.³ Jewell may say he opposes the expanded moratorium,⁴ but he himself made it inevitable, and his opinion makes no difference to the reality of the situation.

Continuing with reasons for almost everyone to support Ms. Clerf: for Democrats, there's the fact that Jewell is an Establishment Republican and Catherine is a traditional Republican.⁵ She may be conservative, but she's not partisan. A vote for Catherine Clerf is a vote against dysfunctional Establishment politics.

Another example: the prospect of everyone being able to generate and sell their own electricity via the grid is being called “the third industrial revolution.” Catherine Clerf has championed the idea locally for years and has testified in favor of it in Olympia. Paul Jewell cast the deciding vote⁶ against allowing this opportunity into Kittitas County and he testified against it in Olympia. Jewell is not a leader or a visionary when it comes to energy policy, but Catherine is.

Independent voters will recognize Catherine’s independence. This year in both races for county commissioner, the good old boys⁷ are, well, boys.⁸ The groupthink that comes with good old boy politics has not served the county well. It is past time for a fresh approach, and electing Catherine Clerf is a big step in that direction.

For an annotated version of this letter, see my blog at whathappensinthecourthouse.blogspot.com.

Steve Verhey
Ellensburg

---

Annotations:

¹Full disclosure: I first got involved with Catherine's campaign when she asked me to make her website. There was talk of this being paying work, but I haven't accepted any money yet. I didn't know her very well when we first started working together, but since then I have chosen to spend considerable time advising, writing and editing, and generally helping Catherine on her campaign on a volunteer basis.

²I started this blog when I was considering running for County Commissioner in 2010, and I spent a lot of time researching and writing about the issues (I eventually did decide to run, and lost in the general election to Obie O'Brien). I wrote an extensive post about the well moratorium in July 2010. At that time Catherine was arguing that surface water was indeed connected to ground water, and that surface water rights holders were having their rights taken by excessive groundwater uses -- the opposite of what Paul Jewell, development speculators, and the rest of the Board of County Commissioners were saying. Science and the State Supreme Court have since agreed with Catherine.

³Paul Jewell was kind enough to meet with me in June of 2010, when my campaign was just starting and I was learning about various issues. At that meeting he emphatically declared that the Department of Ecology's proposal to meter wells was "illegal! illegal!" This exactly mirrored what I heard when I met with a builder's association (the organization ended up endorsing my opponent) that included Steve Senger (who was  defeated in this year's primary for Commissioner, District 2). Like Jewell, Senger expressed genuine anger as he talked about the moratorium, calling both the moratorium and the earlier proposal to meter wells illegal. (The Department of Ecology had offered metering of wellwater usage as a perfectly reasonable alternative to the moratorium. When the county refused in a huff, the state had no choice but to act. In my well moratorium post I wrote about how it was clearly the case that the state was trying to help.)

⁴Late in the classic movie Casablanca, Captain Renault exclaims, "I'm shocked -- shocked -- to find that gambling is going on in here," an instant before he is handed his winnings, and it's meant as comic relief. The Commissioners' response to the recommendation that the well moratorium be extended county-wide was the same kind of comedy. The recommendation was made by the county Proscuting Attorney's Office, which acts as the county's attorney, based on a white paper that was drafted last fall. The recommendation was not a surprise.

⁵The local Establishment Republican Party has in fact publicly disowned Catherine at least once. For one thing, they don't approve of Republicans running against Republicans in primaries. Some of us thought primaries were part of the democratic process, but the local Republican party doesn't.

⁶I was actually present for this vote, and I was a bit stunned by it. I wrote about it at the time, initially saying that I felt Jewell had acted in bad faith by seeming supportive before voting against it. Jewell complained, and I removed my comments about bad faith negotiating. Nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners' action had what pundits call poor optics -- it looked bad.

⁷ This is of course not a slam against good old boys. If it weren't for the groupthink problem, there would be nothing to worry about.

⁸ I had to use the word "boys" for parallel construction with "good old boys;" it is naturally not meant as any kind of insult.

Fire danger in Kittitas County III

It's hard to swing a cat in some places on the Internet without running into data on costs of fighting fires at the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Try Googling "cost of fighting urban fires," for example, and most of the top hits will be about the WUI, not fires in cities.

One item that caught my eye is a white paper from Headwaters Economics (HE), called Solutions to the Rising Costs of Fighting Fires in the Wildland-Urban Interface. HE is based in Bozeman, MT, an area with even more WUI issues than we have in Kittitas County, if that's possible.

Actually, I don't know if that statement, the one about Bozeman's WUI issues compared to ours, is really true, because Kittitas County's wildland development policies are so remarkably pro-development¹ compared to other areas, and Bozeman has always seemed like a sensible place to me.

One key factor in determining WUI impacts is lot size, which determines the density of development outside of urban growth boundaries. The picture shows one example, selected mostly at random from Kittitas County's Assessor's interactive map site. This development's access road is a loop, suggesting that it at least provides firefighters and residents good access for firefighting or escape, but this post is about lot size.

The lots shown in the photo average about 3 acres in area. This is well below the 5 acre minimum allowed by Washington's Growth Management Act, which Kittitas County has been bound by since the early 1990s. Although the county agreed to the GMA, it has rarely, if ever, actually been in compliance, and we have lost repeated appeals and cases as high as the state Supreme Court.

Why would the county allow developments that are so obviously

a) illegal in light of the state GMA,
b) dangerous to firefighters and residents in the event of a fire,
c) very expensive to defend from fire (these are tax dollars we're talking about), and
d) very expensive when it comes to provision of other services?

The reasons can be complex, but they boil down to one thing: too much influence on County Commissioners by the development industry.² We see this in the form of campaign donations and over-representation of developers on citizen's advisory committees. The makeup of citizens advisory committees is decided by the Commissioners, and there are plenty of examples where the Commissioners have denied seats to concerned citizens, or have allowed citizens with serious pro-development conflicts of interest to participate in policy making.³

All three of the sitting commissioners, including Paul Jewell who is up for reelection this year, have been involved in decisions that have led to the unusual levels of property at risk to wildfire in Kittitas County.

---

¹We're not anti-development! The development industry is very important! But, as we have unfortunately seen with the Taylor Bridge Fire, poorly regulated development at the UWI can be expensive and heartbreaking. Thank goodness there have been no serious injuries, but that's what's at stake, in a very real way, when considering development policies.

²There is an opportunity cost to paying too much attention to keeping developers happy. In addition to increasing fire danger, it takes away from time and other resources that could be used to encourage more sustainable growth in the county's job- and tax base.

³What the development industry wants, of course, is to keep costs as low as possible. That means maximizing the number of lots that can be platted on a given acreage, minimizing infrastructure costs borne by the developer, and maximizing infrastructure costs borne by taxpayers. Kittitas County has shown considerable willingness to help in all three areas, effectively socializing costs that should instead be paid by the developers.

My favorite local natural history blog

Check out Five Acre Geographic, run by one of Kittitas County's premier amateur scientists. You'll learn, for example, that this critter is a moth, and why.

Fire danger in Kittitas County II

Some background (we'll get to the fire danger part soon): during run-up to the mortgage bubble, Kittitas county came under intense development pressure. This led to a number of hasty decisions and policy changes on the part of county government. The development boom also funneled money from real estate developers, builders, and land use attorneys into the campaigns of all sitting county commissioners; this effect on county government started late in the previous century and continues to this day.

The influence of real estate developers has had several unfortunate policy impacts, some of which, like access road requirements, increase the danger to residents and firefighters in the event of a wildfire like the one we're experiencing now. The most desirable land for development is in forested areas, but the problem extends county-wide. One example is the Tumble Creek development in Suncadia, the subject of my last post. That most expensive development in the county is served by only one county-standard access road, even though it contains (by my count) over 150 lots.

The Kittitas Count Prosecuting Attorney's Office (PAO) does more than prosecute offenders: it acts as the legal representative and advisor for county government. The PAO has repeatedly warned the County Commissioners that Kittitas County's access road policy is out of step with the policies of neighboring counties, and that this could put our county at risk of liability in the event of a large fire. Tumble Creek is out of compliance with even the most generous policies in the state, which are mostly found on the much wetter (and therefore much less fire-prone) west side of the Cascades.

Kittitas County's current policy is that a second access road is required for developments with more than 40 lots. This is 1/3 more lots than than the 30-lot limit recommended by the International Fire Code, and 2.5 times more than the very cautious requirement of 16 lots in Douglas County.

Incredibly, there is pressure from a citizen's advisory committee (which, perhaps not surprisingly, happens to be dominated by real estate developers; members of the committee must be approved by the County Commissioners) to raise the lot limit to 101 lots. In other words, a development of 100 lots would not be required to have a second access road, no matter where it was located in the county.

The PAO correctly observes that the county's existing 40-lot limit puts the county at risk, and has raised the alarm with increasing urgency in a series of memos this year. This wouldn't be necessary if the PAO weren't concerned that the County Commissioners might vote for the interests of their campaign donors, which is a rather alarming thought in the midst of a fire like the Taylor Bridge Fire.

Where the real fire danger is in Kittitas County I

The Taylor Bridge Fire is still mostly uncontrolled as I write this, and I've just read on Twitter (#taylorbridgefire) that the estimated cost of the fire as of yesterday is $2.7 million. Firefighting is very costly, and loss of property is both tragic and costly. Thank goodness there have been no serious injuries.

It's not too soon to be thinking about how our county policies and choices have put property at risk, and how things might be done differently.

Firefighting efforts primarily focus on protection of life and property, and in the case of range/forest fires it is well known that the rural-urban interface is a special problem area. It's an issue that's covered in detail by the Municipal Research and Service Center of Washington, for example.

Nowhere in the county is there more money invested, and more danger to the lives of firefighers and residents, than at the rural-urban interface that is Suncadia. It's a beautiful, troubled, spared-no-expense resort with hundreds of millions of dollars of assessed value in homes and other property. It's also surrounded by and webbed with forest around the expensive homes, golf fairways, and lodges.

And, unbelievably, Tumble Creek, the oldest, highest-value neighborhood in Suncadia, has only one road in or out.

Kittitas County allowed this neighborhood to be built in the early 2000s, and has allowed additional Suncadia phases to be built out since then, without requiring the completion of Jenkins Road, the second access road built to county standards as required by County Code and the original development agreement.¹

---

¹Note added August 24, 2012: a reader has e-mailed to tell me that 75 houses have been built in the Tumble Creek development. My understanding is that lot number is what triggers the second access road requirement, but apparently the number of houses is almost twice the 40-unit limit. Because the development was allowed to be built out of compliance with county requirements, it may be possible that the county would be liable for problems resulting from a disaster that was worsened by lack of a second road as required.

Matt Manweller's roadtrip to Olympia

With the election season upon us, I'm going to return to blogging about local political issues, at least for a while. To make things easier for everyone, here is the text of my recent letter to the editor of the Daily Record originally published August 1, ahead of the primary election in which Manweller was a candidate.

To the Editor,

In Saturday’s (July 28) Daily Record, Political Science Professor and legislative candidate Matt Manweller climbed back into the ring¹ to go toe to toe with Von Ellison over her July 26 letter to the Editor (“Manweller Would Not Represent District Well”).

Indeed, Ellison landed a number of scoring punches in her letter. She noted that Manweller’s position as a tenured professor (essentially, he has a job for life unless budget cuts eliminate his position) means he is unable to relate to the challenges facing average citizens in his district. She correctly wrote that Manweller is “known for his temper and irrationality.” She also correctly observed that his extreme partisan behavior will hurt, not help, the democratic process and our district. And she pointed out that Dr. Manweller’s position on Obamacare is misguided (Dr. Manweller is not a “real” doctor, by the way).

In this latest bout, Manweller tries to land a haymaker by focusing on Obamacare. Ignoring Ellison’s legitimate points about his character and behavior, he responds by claiming that he recently traveled to Olympia, spending a “tiring day away from [his] family” to crash a legislative hearing about the effect of Obamacare on Washington State’s budget. He went, he says, so he can “cast an educated vote” for our district.

In reality, Ellison has opened cuts that won’t close.

The fact is, Manweller is already on the record as opposing Washington’s participation in Obamacare, exactly in line with the dogma of the most extremist wings of his party. Nothing he could have heard in Olympia would change his potential vote.

Mitt Romney, the author of Obamacare, refuses to release his tax returns because “people will just use them to attack.” That’s the reason Manweller went to Olympia: to get information to use in attacking Obamacare.

Take this shocking detail, from Manweller’s letter: Obamacare will increase the state's Medicaid rolls by 496,000 new people. Translation: half a million of our fellow Washingtonians who did not have health insurance, will have health insurance. Statistically, many of these people will be in our legislative district. Manweller opposes this. And yet he wants our vote.

He won’t be getting Von Ellison’s vote, and he won’t be getting mine, either.²

Steve Verhey
Ellensburg

¹The use of boxing jargon may remind the reader of the time Dr. Manweller got into a fistfight with a recently post-op cancer survivor after lying about the man's wife on Manweller's radio program. I have mentioned this incident a couple of times on this blog.
²This will hopefully be my last post about Manweller for a while. I'm annoyed to have to abandon what was once at least grudging respect for him.

Another letter to the editor, this one about Matt Manweller

To the editor,

In his latest column Matt Manweller takes issue with various of his critics, including my response to his surly and insulting comments on the blog version of my recent letter to the editor, at whathappensinthecourthouse.blogspot.com .

Virtually all of my past interactions with Matt have been cordial, but he’s really taken the gloves off now that I have begun a new round as a private citizen.¹ I was surprised to find him coming after me, since most of his column was about a fight over an obscure economic idea that doesn't even appear to have any value in policy.

Matt unleashes a flurry of blows. As I reread the column, sportscaster Howard Cosell's voice echoes in my mind, as if calling a slow-motion instant replay.

One thing Howard would have been excited about is when, soon after the opening bell, Matt seems to say that the number of guns in the US contributes to our low life expectancy compared to Europe.² Again, not my fight, but an interesting thing for the Chair of the local Republican Party to draw attention to.

Matt drags me into the ring partly because I wrote that a person who had posted a picture of President Obama with crosshairs on his forehead was a Republican Precinct Committee Officer. It turns out the person was not a PCO, though the incident was certainly real.³ Since I didn’t name the person, I apologize to Matt, as Chair of the party involved. I let my guard down, and I deserved to get tagged on that one.

I shake it off, but in another combination of punches, Matt claims that I blamed local Republicans for the horrible gun violence in Tucson. This time he’s all alone in the ring. No one has blamed violence outside Kittitas County on the combative writing or broadcasting style of any local Republican.^4,5

Finally, aiming a low blow at James Maloney, a local small businessman who I do not know, Matt seems to suggest that readers should take their business elsewhere.⁶

Now, a different, stronger voice replaces Cosell, who is speechless with outrage.

It is Joseph Welch, standing up to Joseph McCarthy, another Republican bully who, like Manweller, thought nothing of using intimidation and character assassination, or of threatening people’s livelihoods: “Until this moment…I never gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness,” Welch said. “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”⁷

Steve Verhey
Ellensburg

---

¹For an example of a cordial, even pleasant, exchange between Dr. Manweller and myself, see this post from early in the past political season.

²There were other problems with Dr. Manweller's column. For example, last week a "real" doctor wrote to point out that Dr. Manweller's understanding of health care issues is flawed, to say the least.

³Without meaning to detract from the sincerity of my apology, it's possible Dr. Manweller and I are talking about two different people, since the person I have in mind didn't run for PCO, as Matt says, in the last election. I hope this doesn't mean there were two Obama-crosshairs posters, and I saw one while Matt saw the other.

⁴Even a casual reading of my January letter to the editor will show that not once, but twice I said I didn't think the tragedy in Tucson was politically motivated or inspired. Since Dr. Manweller isn't a casual reader, but a highly trained one, I can only conclude that he intentionally misrepresented the contents of my letter.

⁵There is one example of violence that has been linked to a local Republican leader -- to Dr. Manweller himself. In my January letter I said that he had fabricated the details of his on-air attack on Linda Huber. For whatever reason, he did not choose to disagree with this part of my letter in his recent column. This seems like an admission of guilt for a very serious offense against a citizen and our community. The offense did lead to violence, though Dr. Manweller's exact role in the violence is murky. It is certainly true that he is much younger and more healthy than Mr. Huber, and has studied boxing.

⁶This is not the first time I have heard of Dr. Manweller threatening a person's job. This kind of behavior is even more unacceptable than making up stories about private citizens on the radio.

⁷This was before I was born, but it happened during a very difficult time in American history. Joseph Welch is justifiably remembered for bravely standing up to the dangerous Joseph McCarthy. Dr. Manweller's habit of seeking to dismiss me and others as "local liberal activists" echoes McCarthy's charges about communists from those days. The Wikipedia entry for McCarthy is very interesting reading.

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor,

I read “Community Members Look Forward to 2011” in Saturday’s Daily Record while following the awful news from Arizona about the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing and wounding of 19 others. There appears to be no political motivation, only insanity, behind the attack.

Even so, my thoughts went back to the past couple of years in our own community. I thought about the drawing of President Obama with crosshairs on his forehead that briefly appeared on an Ellensburg business owned by a Republican Precinct Committee Officer.¹ Of course I thought about the Manweller-Huber incident at the radio station, which started with Mr. Manweller’s fabricated on-air story about Linda Huber’s behavior at the Rodeo Parade.²

National events affected our community, too. We witnessed Sarah Palin’s unceasing and calculated use of violent verbal and graphical imagery, and Sharron Angle’s “Second Amendment remedy” comment.³

I thought about the three discussions of health care reform that I organized in the fall of 2009, after a summer of frightening town hall meetings that were disrupted by Tea Party members. Jimmie Applegate graciously accepted my invitation to be the speaker at the third meeting. The first meeting drew nearly 100 people, a few of them disruptive Tea Party members, including Kirk Groening.⁴ I thought about how I had been too naïve to invite the police, but an officer had come anyway. I thought about how someone tried to get library administrators to withdraw permission for more meetings in the Hal Holmes Center.

The “Look Forward” article also included recollections of 2010, and featured comments from Mr. Applegate and Mr. Groening; not one, but two other interviewees mentioned the Manweller-Huber incident.⁵ Mr. Applegate recalled that people had said mean things about Republicans on Daily Record comment forums, and Mr. Groening remembered the Tea Party candidates’ forum in Kittitas. I remember that forum, too. Mr. Applegate was the timekeeper, and one of the speakers was a Tea Party candidate for the state House who was running against the principled Republican incumbent solely because of his vote in favor of a gay rights bill.

When the unthinkable happens, it’s hard not to remember things like this. The violence in Arizona doesn’t seem to have been political, but it reminds us to behave, at a minimum, in ways we won’t be ashamed to have recalled later.

Steve Verhey
Ellensburg

---

¹This person, while a frequent Daily Record letter writer, isn't a public person in the same way as the other people named here, so I won't name him. I don't know how long the poster/drawing had been up when I saw it; it disappeared while I went to get a camera. I should have called the Secret Service immediately.
²I wrote briefly about this incident on this blog.
³Is it fair to bring this up? Yes: I am not suggesting that Palin's or Angle's behavior had anything to do with this tragic incident, but it is factual to say that they did behave in certain ways that are relevant to a discussion of violence.
⁴Here is the Daily Record's article about the first meeting. And here is a Guest Comment I published in the Daily Record before the third meeting.
⁵One of the people who mentioned the Manweller-Huber incident directly linked it to the recent rise of incivility.

Maybe now we can be happy about what we have

I have to admit that I jumped to unfair conclusions when I saw Thursday's Daily Record story, "Stop the Leak" and its followup story on Saturday.

My initial reaction was that the articles would be about an attempt to resurrect the failed plan for "regional retail" at the west interchange, but instead the articles contained fairly straightforward information and reasonable outlooks from almost everyone who was quoted. Even as it was being proposed it was obvious to many of us that the project would go nowhere, and it looks like most of those interviewed have finally realized this, too. It's unfortunate so much money, time, and goodwill were wasted in getting to this point, but it is still nice to see a little realism.

The articles did give me an excuse to do a little research on retail leakage studies, which are a fairly common tool in economic development (click here for a Google search on retail leakage). These studies appear to be undertaken for a few different reasons by a variety of different entities. Some reasons for analyzing retail leakage include:

• Developing strategies for increasing sales tax revenue. In our case, very high levels of fuel sales to passing motorists partly help offset low levels of local new car sales.
  
• Understanding how well the local shopping needs of residents are being met. For example, residents of the town of Kittitas must go elsewhere to buy just about everything except basic needs like groceries and hardware.
  
• Uncovering non-obvious business opportunities.
  
• Gathering information to use in making the case to prospective retailers to move to a location.
• Building support for large retail developments. The obvious example here would be the failed development at the West Interchange in Ellensburg.
  

It is important to note that leakage doesn't necessarily translate to opportunity. One study I found (from Wayne County, Indiana) put it this way:

Retail leakage means that residents are spending more for products than local businesses capture. Retail sales leakage suggests that there is unmet demand in the trade area and that the community can support additional store space for that type of business.

However, retail leakage does not necessarily translate into opportunity. For example, there could be a strong competitor in a neighboring community that dominates the market for that type of product or store.

I also found the handy table shown above. This came from a leakage study done by Ohio State University for Medina, OH (important: data in the table are for Medina, not Ellensburg). Clicking on it makes it a little more readable, or you can see the original study.

Notice the grouping of the different shopping types, and notice that we actually have many of the various shopping types. Kittitas County probably has one or two examples of almost every type of shopping on the list, and Ellensburg, where I live, has all except a very few (I can't think of any dedicated "hobby toy & game shops," for example, and even Medina doesn't have any mobile home dealers).

As I read and write and think about retail leakage, I also think of the attitude some people have about shopping in Ellensburg -- in some cases it's downright hostile. I'm not saying you can find everything you might want in Ellensburg, but some people have it stuck in their heads that Ellensburg doesn't have anything they want, and a few, including at least one particularly obnoxious commenter on the Daily Record's website, seem to take pride in shopping elsewhere.

It occurs to me that these people may have been led to believe Ellensburg's shopping sucks by the way previous leakage studies have been spun by those who stood to make money from development at the west interchange. The Daily Record seems to be working to undo this damage (I refer to their "buy local" campaign, not the leakage articles), and I hope the Chamber of Commerce will, too.

County offers literal bail-out?

Another story in today's Daily Record about the Upper County well moratorium, which the county precipitated in the summer of 2009 by insisting on supporting developers who were abusing the exempt well option¹.

I'm afraid not much has changed since 2009: In published statements the county seems willfully unaware that the state, three counties, and the Yakama Nation have important interests when it comes to Yakima River flows. The county continues to equate real estate development with economic development (Paul Jewell is quoted in the article: "...this is costing the community jobs and is costing us lost opportunities for much-needed economic development.")

My favorite part of the article is the "centerpiece of the county's ideas," a domestic water reserve program. The idea is that the county will buy water rights in order to allow developers to offset new wells -- an almost literal bail-out of the developers who got us into this mess in the first place. Why should the county do this?

The county needs to do a better job of explaining the economic benefit of the Upper County development proposals. It needs to a much better job of reassuring us that county commissioners are not simply doing the bidding of their very large campaign contributors. And they need to get a clue about what real economic development means.

Footnotes:

¹For more on the well moratorium, see my Well Moratorium Summary.

CWU budget: why no official concern from county?

One of the things I talked about this summer and fall was CWU's impact on our county economy, and how surprised I have been at the lack of concern shown by county commissioners about CWU's budget cuts. Let's look at the three regional comprehensive universities in Washington.

WWU (2367 employees*) is the largest employer in Whatcom county, but the county has a remarkably diverse economy. WWU employs about 1.2% of the population of Whatcom county.

EWU (1948 employees*) doesn't even make the list of top ten employers in Spokane county, which has a population about ten (10!) times larger than Kittitas county's. EWU employs about 0.4% of the population of Spokane county.

CWU (1815 employees*) is the largest employer by far in Kittitas county. (The Ellensburg School District is #2 with fewer than 400 employees.) CWU employs a whopping 4.5% of people in Kittitas county!

It's clear that budget cuts at WWU and EWU, as upsetting as they might be to their on-campus communities, will have little real effect on the economies of their counties. But budget cuts at CWU will have a big effect on our county's economy.

So I'm left wondering: why have our county commissioners not expressed concern about CWU budget cuts? It seems to me they should be actively raising this issue with both our legislators and in testimony to relevant committees in Olympia. (As I mentioned in an earlier post, building more buildings doesn't count, for many reasons including the fact that adding buildings increases operating expenses and doesn't help the county economy once they're completed.)

---

*2009 employee numbers, available from the state Office of Financial Management.

Back in town

I spent almost all of last week out of town at various conferences: the Bioenergy Research Symposium and the the Future Energy Expo and State Energy Summit, both in Seattle, and the Tilth Producers Conference in Port Townsend.

A number of counties were represented at the energy conferences in various ways. I regret not taking the time to make a list. Of course, west-side counties like King and Pierce are leaders, but there are important things going on in Central/Eastern Washington counties, too. Off the top of my head, some east-of-the-Cascades counties where there's a lot of county government leadership in renewable energy as a source of economic development are Lincoln, Spokane, and Chelan counties.

There were at least four CWU people at the energy conferences, which was good to see. One Kittitas County government person, Kirk Holmes, gave a presentation on renewable energy project siting (and did a good job), but had to leave immediately after.

On winning and losing, and loyal opposition

To the Editor:

It's true: I expected to win, but then, why would I have run if I thought I was going to lose?

The real news is this: my opponent expected me to win, too¹. Why? Because during the campaign he heard me and a variety of authors of letters to the editor explain, clearly and frankly and not in a negative way, a number of hard truths.

We discussed ways the current Board of County Commissioners has let the citizens of Kittitas County down². We explained how the economy now and going forward is far different than the one in the recent past, and how this will require new thinking³. We pointed out that CWU has been ignored as an important part of our county economy and as a key part of our path to a better economy⁴. We noted that many citizens don’t feel county government has been listening to them.⁵ We emphasized that we need to move away from our current development-based boom-and-bust economy.⁶

All of this is true, and wishing or pretending otherwise won’t make it not true.

The major issues of the campaign will follow the new Board of County Commissioners as they begin their work after the first of the year, and their performance in dealing with the issues will be used to judge them in the next election⁷. The Commissioners deserve as much help as we can give them in getting Kittitas County back on track. I’ll be doing my part by, among other things, continuing to write my blog about county issues, http://whathappensinthecourthouse.blogspot.com , where readers can find a more interactive version of this letter.

Finally, I am grateful for and humbled by the help⁸, ideas⁸, time⁸, and money⁹ contributed by so many to my campaign.

Steve Verhey
Ellensburg

---

Footnotes
¹As we waited for the vote tally to be announced, Obie was standing about six feet away from me, talking about how he had been too busy to do much campaigning, and generally making excuses. He was genuinely surprised when the result was announced.
²See Well Moratorium Summary, for example.
³The housing development boom was funded by toxic mortgages that contributed to the banking crisis and required a bailout by the Bush Administration. That kind of money will (hopefully) never be available again.
⁴Our local politicians' lack of response to CWU budget cuts was adequately addressed during the campaign, and doesn't need to be repeated here.
⁵I heard much more of this in meetings with voters. Don't forget that "listening" and "hearing" are two different things -- citizens actually don't feel heard.
⁶There is an opportunity cost to paying as much attention to development as the county has done. The county was blindsided by the first wind farm application because they had been distracted, for example, by development-related issues.
⁷Voters should not accept experience without real accomplishments.
⁸Scores of people helped in one way or another.
⁹Obie raised over $11,000 from 24 donors, including his party; I raised about $7800 from at least 40 donors (my donors aren't as easy to view, because I filed by mail instead of electronically; to see them, this link might work. $5500 of Obie's money was from the Republican Party, and about $3700 came from the real estate development industry (my favorites were $500 checks from Northland Investment Inc and from Northland Investment LLC).

Election results

It doesn't look like the results will change much from the current situation: Obie has 6608 votes and I have 4041 votes: a landslide for Obie. I must say, I'm surprised. Indeed, Obie seemed more surprised than I was when the results were announced at the Courthouse. There is very little chance the basic outcome will change, and if I were Obie I'd be very humbled.

We ran the best campaign possible under the circumstances. Not a perfect campaign -- this result isn't a reason to quit trying!-- but a darn good campaign. I am proud of the campaign we ran, and I thank you for all your work on it. The beauty of a result like this is that there's no woulda-coulda-shoulda regarding our work. We were up against something irrational. We did our best, and that's a lot.

Thanks everyone, for your work, your contacts with voters, your letters, your donations, and your votes. We can't let this stop us, and we won't.

Thanks to all citizens who voted everywhere!

Steve

League of Women Voters Forum

Here's the text of my opening remarks at the LWV Forum last night.

The last time my opponent and I were together in this room, at last week’s Chamber of Commerce forum, I asked him to provide details of the economic plan he’s been talking about through the entire campaign. He hasn’t, yet, and in fact it’s hard to tell what his position is on just about anything.

Tonight I’d like to focus on some of my ideas and plans, and the most important issue is jobs. How do we get more jobs? How do we keep the jobs? Where will the jobs come from? In 2007 we had the lowest unemployment in the history of the county, because of the construction boom. Now we have the highest unemployment in many years because of the construction bust. According to the state economist, it could take 20 years for the construction industry to recover.

It is absolutely essential that we move past the boom-and-bust economy that’s gotten us into this mess. A return to 2007 is simply not possible: the housing bubble has burst, and not only did our leaders get suckered by it, they helped it happen here. This has to change.

Farming, CWU, tourism, and renewable energy are our largest assets, yet they have all been getting less attention than they should as the county has struggled with the mess it has created. Moving on from the latest bust means paying attention to helping farmers get their products to markets faster and cheaper, capitalizing on CWU’s presence, protecting and improving our tourist attractions, and making sure we keep as much of the benefits of renewable energy as possible right here in Kittitas County. At the same time, we need to do a far better job of motivating economic progress in all parts of the county.

Getting farm products to market cheaper and faster means being fully involved with the state’s 20-year transportation plan, which is being finalized and implemented right now. Capitalizing on CWU’s presence means actively working with CWU administration and faculty, not ignoring them as we have in the past, and supporting CWU in the legislature. Protecting and improving our tourist attractions means preserving some of the best rural and forest land in the entire state, and using county physical assets to attract tourists. Insuring that as much of the benefits of renewable energy projects remain here means negotiating smarter and tougher with renewable energy developers. I can talk more specifically about each of these topics as we find the time this evening.

Finally, motivating economic progress means accepting that we live in a totally different economy than we did just a few years ago. Unfortunately, my opponent and his supporters seem to think we can turn back the clock. We can’t.

None of this will be simple or easy.

But in spite of the county’s economic and employment crisis my opponent’s party has endorsed someone who has serious problems with competence, judgment, professionalism, and integrity. Over a week ago I posted documentation of these problems to my blog, available through steveverhey.com, and invited Obie to correct the record. He hasn’t.

In raising these issues, of course, I have naturally invited my opponent to raise similar concerns about me, if he can – after all, nobody’s perfect.

On my blog, in interviews, in chats with voters, in these candidate forums, and in meetings with voters that I organized myself – and invited my opponent to – I have been as clear as I could be about where I stand on the issues that face the county, and why. On the other hand, my opponent seems to have a hard time actually answering questions, so it’s hard to tell where he stands on just about anything. I hope we can hear about his economic plan and get some clear answers this evening.

Supreme Court oral arguments: KC and C. WA Homebuilders vs. E. WA Growth Managment Board

This case was over ten years in the making. A decision isn't expected for several months; meanwhile, it's interesting to watch this.

Putting the O in Obie: 0 for 4 at voter Q&A

Another surprising turnout about the Damman School voter Q&A session, the fourth in the series of meetings I organized to give both Obie and me a chance to meet voters outside Ellensburg.

And another no-show from Obie. He had more than three weeks' notice for this event, yet still could not manage to schedule an appearance.

I learned a huge amount from voters at each of these events, and Obie could have, too. Thanks to everyone who came!

Damman Q&A, fact-checking

From: verheys@hotmail.com
To: obie@writeme.com
Subject: Damman voter Q&A, fact-checking
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:57:07 -0700


Obie,

As you know, I have scheduled the fourth independent Q&A with voter for 6 pm Sunday, October 17 at Damman School. I hope you can make it to this one.

Also, I have posted an annotated version of my opening remarks from last night on my blog. I am perfectly willing to update it if anything I have said is untrue or unfair.

Best wishes,

Steve

Verhey for Kittitas County Commissioner
Independent.
read the blog: whathappensinthecourthouse.blogspot.com
See and like the Facebook page

Chamber of Commerce Forum

Last night's Ellensburg Chamber of Commerce candidates' forum was the first official event of the campaign season, and ballots were mailed yesterday. Unfortunately, the event was not televised and recorded for replay as planned, so I'll share my opening statement here.

Besides, it requires some documentation, because it was rather blunt -- without, I hope, being negative. Here it is:

I’d like to thank the organizers for this opportunity to speak directly to the Ellensburg Chamber of Commerce. One elephant in the room tonight is that both of the people listed as Obie O’Brien’s campaign committee are past Executive Directors of the Ellensburg Chamber. Of course they are both acting as private citizens, and of course they made their commitment some time ago; I understand that once the brochures have been printed, it’s hard to change.

Yet, with the county’s economy and employment in crisis, it’s hard to escape the fact that the opponent chosen for me by Jim¹, Bob², and their party³ has problems with competence⁴, judgment⁵, professionalism⁶, and integrity⁷. He has no real business or higher education experience, only experience as an employee^8,9. He has shown no interest in the part of the county outside Ellensburg¹⁰. He has no experience with farming except as a part-time irrigator, long ago¹¹. He seems hand-picked to continue the policies that got us into this situation¹².

My opponent is running on his government experience, but not his achievements¹³. One phrase he has repeated in earlier appearances with me is that we need to “make a plan, then follow it.” What is his plan? Tonight I hope we hear details of his plan¹⁴; I’ll try to share as many as possible of mine¹⁵.

Footnotes
¹Jim Armstrong, current member of the Ellensburg Chamber Board and past Executive Director; current Director of CWU Alumni Relations
²Bob Hansen, current Executive Director of the Ellensburg Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber is in the process of merging with the Economic Development Group). Mr. Hansen also represents the Lamb Family Property at Ellensburg's west I-90 interchange, a development made possible by Obie's actions on the Ellensburg City Council.
³The Kittitas County Republican Party's platform is here.
⁴One example of a competence problem is Obie's role as President of the Board of HopeSource. Given that his area of expertise is city government, "Upper County Housing Plan Hits Snag" was a surprising development.
⁵One example is Obie's statement, during a City Council meeting, that it might be better "just to bulldoze" the Ellensburg train station, rather than protect it by purchasing it.
⁶During the 2007 election campaign, Obie, then Mayor of Ellensburg, endorsed candidates for City Council in a letter to the editor -- writing in his official capacity, not as a private citizen. I remember being stunned by this; all of the candidates he endorsed were defeated.
⁷The action listed in the previous footnote was serious enough to be listed here, too.
⁸Obie's business experience is limited to his work with a cable company in Yakima. In past candidates' forums he has also mentioned that his wife started a business.
⁹Obie's current job is in media services at CWU. In a quick search of CWU's website I was not able to find a relevant page to link to. See "Welcome Back, Central Students" for some information about my activities at CWU.
¹⁰For example, I have organized four outside-of-Ellensburg meetings with voters, and invited Obie. Of the three that have been held so far, he has attended none.
¹¹Obie spoke of this work, which doesn't seem to have been a paying job, at candidates' forums during the primary campaign.
¹²Obie announced his candidacy very early in the campaign season; his list of donors includes donors who were also very active in the 2006 campaign for this position.
¹³Two things I can recall Obie citing as accomplishments are the bicycle helmet requirement (which doesn't seem to be enforced, making it bad legislation) and the West Interchange/Lamb Property development (everyone who voted with him was defeated in the election held the week after the City Council vote, and everyone who voted against the measure was re-elected; Obie was not up for re-election that year).
¹⁴When someone stresses both their experience and the importance of having a plan, it seems reasonable for voters to expect to see a plan.
¹⁵I'll write about my plan in another post very soon.

Some of these items have been on the About Obie page of this blog for months, along with a request for correction if appropriate. I will update this page if any of my statements are unfair or untrue.

Encounters in the County update

This week's three Q&A sessions with voters, in Easton, at the Swauk-Teanaway Grange, and in Kittitas, were really rewarding. Unfortunately, Obie chose not to attend any of them.

I don't know why he didn't/wasn't able to come, because I gave him as much notice as possible, first of what I was planning, then of the full schedule -- so scheduling couldn't be the problem, at least not for all three.

Here's what he missed. He missed good turnouts at Easton and the Grange, and a surprising turnout in Kittitas. He missed citizens who were appreciative that someone made the effort to hear about their concerns and to at least try to answer their questions. Almost all of the citizens were new to me, and there was a wide range of points of view and interests. And, frankly, he missed hearing about a lot of frustration with county government.

The candidate forums organized by the Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters are great, as far as they go. But because candidates from all races are there, and because there is so little time allowed for responses to questions, the chance to really address issues is very limited. That's why I'm organizing separate sessions just for Obie and me. Obie has one more chance to meet citizens and answer their questions directly, at 6 pm at the Damman School on Sunday, October 17. I'll send him another invitation this week, but I thought all you-all would appreciate an update.

The Encounters in the County

From: verheys@hotmail.com
To: obie@writeme.com
Subject: RE: Meet the Candidates
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:01:26 -0700

Whoops, forgot the attachment.

S.



From: verheys@hotmail.com
To: obie@writeme.com
Subject: Meet the Candidates
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:00:25 -0700

Obie,

This ad will start running tomorrow in the Daily Record. I hope you can join me at these -- I will have a data projector available if you'd like to show some PowerPoint slides.

Best wishes,

Steve

Verhey for Kittitas County Commissioner
Independent.
read the blog: whathappensinthecourthouse.blogspot.com
See and like the Facebook page