Next live chat HERE
Sunday 8/7 at 6 pm Pac/7 pm Mtn

Parks building: 3rd turn of the wheel

Anyone interested in the intersection of politics, business and the law in Idaho could do worse than hie directly to the latest Idaho Supreme Court decision in Gillingham Construction v. Newby-Wiggins Construction (decided July 22), a case turning most basically on contract and liability law but containing food for thought ranging far afield.

It has to do with the construction of a major state building, the Department of Parks & Recreation building northeast of Boise on Warm Springs Road, going back to 1993. (Yes, the battle is still on, and not over yet.)

The prime contractor on the project was Newby-Wiggins. The architect was Lombard-Conrad, and the firm hired to do grading and excavation was Gillingham. The fireworks began when, as the Court noted, "After completing approximately 85% of its work, Gillingham’s project superintendent, Robert Allen, discovered a problem with the existing site elevations which were much higher than those previously reported on the Project’s site plans and specifications."

That ultimately meant delays and higher costs for Gillingham, and weather meant additional delays; the work was completed in 1994. The work was apparently satisfactory; the question was, who should pay for the extra cost owing to the site elevations? GIllingham sued Newby-Wiggins; Newby-Wiggins sued Gillingham back; it also sued the state of Idaho for indemnification; and the state, finally, filed a third-party suit against Lombard-Conrad.

Amazing how these things spread like civic sprawl.

Parts of this legal activity dropped by the way over time. But the battle between Newby-Wiggins and Gillingham continues. Their conflict went to a jury trial before 4th District Judge Cheri Copsey; after Gillingham delivered its case, Newby-Wiggins moved for a directed verdict in its favor, and Copsey agreed. She ruled for the prime contract mainly as a matter of law but also saying there wasn't enough evidence to support a key part of Gillingham's case. The Supreme Court generally agreed on the law but said the evidence issue should have gone to the jury.

That was the first Supreme Court ruling. Back in district court, a jury this time sided with Gillingham. Copsey issued an unusual (not unprecedented) directed verdict, notwithstanding the jury verdict, in Newby-Wiggins's favor. Back at the Supreme Court, the justices said that each of the three reasons Copsey gave for her decision was flawed, and sent the case - yes - back to district court.

Two points of note grow out of this. One is a question - the answer isn't specifically noted in the high court ruling - how much did Gillingham actually lose in the course of the construction work, and does it even begin to approach the cost of all these legal expenses?

There is also this, buried down in the court decision, arrived at through a review of the case files.

In the course of post-trial proceedings the fact developed that the district judge engaged in conversations with the jury following the verdict but before post-trial motions were heard, or could even be filed, and before a final judgment was entered. The district judge discounted the effect of the contact, but the language concerning that disavowal is potent evidence to the contrary. The district judge stated the following:

THE COURT: I do have question for you and I’m going to – I’m going to tell everyone up front that after the decision, I went back to talk to the jury, as I always do and I never comment on a jury’s verdict at all. But the jury asked me a question and I came back and it was the first question they asked me. And that was we’re really curious about the settlement – about what this agreement was. So I told them what the agreement was. And they asked me did Gillingham receive money from the State and I said, yeah. They were shocked. They all indicated that they would have – that this would have affected them. The reason that becomes important – normally I would not say it’s important and certainly if the parties ask for me to do a remittitur at the very least, at the very least I would do a remittitur in this case, but your comment to the jury in closing argument which said, if you find the State is responsible, my client receives nothing. It really becomes crucial when I heard the jury make that remark. And it was crucial before I even heard it because I still have a problem with that statement and I’ve read what you have written in your brief, but to me that was such a fundamental error and the wrongness of that comment was brought home to me when I went back to the jury. ... For the purposes of this discussion, I am not going to take into account what the jurors said to me when I went in there. In my view it is not relevant to
my decision. All I’m saying is that it did draw my attention to the enormity of your
statement, because they understood that your client would receive nothing. That’s what
they understood.

There are a couple of observations here. The narrower is the Supreme Court's commentary: "To the extent there is a practice of trial judges engaging jurors in a dialogue of questions and answers following a verdict, but before post trial matters, including sentencing, are heard
and decided, it is improper. It is no different than any other ex parte contact that may influence the outcome of a proceeding. After a verdict is taken the judge may thank the jury members for their service and address those issues of accommodating the jury members’ convenience. Otherwise, the door between the bench and the jury is closed so long as the case is pending, only to be opened in a proper proceeding."

But there is another issue here. Clearly, the judge and the jury reached clearly different conclusions, based on large part on what information was presented and available to each. And that information was not the same. There are some real implications in all this about what it takes to make a jury process work.

And I'll stop it there, before this post foes on as long as this case has. 07/31/05 16:34 [comment / reprint]

I-cracked

Looks like the Congress is about to send $220 million to Seattle for work on the crumbling Alaska Way Viaduct. (The decision wasn't yet final at this writing, but it looked strongly probable.) The work as a whole may cost between $3-4 billion depending on the option chosen, but the federal bucks are still no small consideration. Now the question is going to be, will Seattle get to keep the money?

That's because the federal money is a match, depending on the new money made available from the recently-passed increases in the state gas tax, 9.5 cents phased in over the next few years. As with so many other taxes, Tim Eyman has taken aim, and his initiative troops have put the measure, Initiative 912, on the ballot. Early polling indications suggest that support for the measure - the repealer - strong out of the box, and that its chances in November seem good.

And very likely so. But before we leave this matter, a couple of points should be lodged.

The gaggle of tax-related initiatives arising in states ever since the late 70s are a particular kind of mindless: They focus exclusively on one half of an equation, letting the other dangle out of sight. Wanna cut your taxes? Of course you do! Just sign and vote here ... The problem then being, of course: What are the consequences of doing that? Maybe the consequences are good and proper, but the initiative backers haven't allowed themselves to be bothered with tidying up after the explosions they ignite.

So, a modest proposal, to be repeated here from time to time: Constitutional amendments in the states, providing that initiatives carrying a fiscal impact have to balance. That is to say, if you're advocating spending, you have to say where the money is going to come from; and if you want to cut taxes, you have to tell everyone where exactly the budget impact will be. That would make an honest proposition out of these initiatives, attention to real-world consequences instead of reliance on feel-good voting. In the case of I-912, for one example, Eyman and his group should have to put on the table either an alternative source of funding for the transportation projects - which polling shows the voters overwhelmingly think need repair - or specify which ones would be dropped. It would put the voters in an real driver's seat, instead of a fake one.

The other point, involving some similar ideas, can be found in Joel Connelly's excellent column today outlining the situation and its political challenges and opportunities.

His basic point is that the backers of the road funding deal have a responsibility now to defend it - to engage the public interest in a sound road system. And Connelly suggests the way to do that, by building trust that the money will be spent wisely.

Connelly: "Gov. Gary Locke was at his worst in such situations. The former governor's feeble counterattacks against Tim Eyman's anti-tax initiatives reminded me of French army attempts to breach Wehrmacht lines in 1940."

This, in short, is where new Governor Christine Gregoire can position herself as a truly strong leader, or fall into the same old trap. Connelly even outlines the specifics, a series of steps she could take to build the trust and put the state's transportation needs back on front burner.

This isn't a campaign that has to be lost. I-912 isn't a guaranteed winner. It will win only if no lessons are learned from the mass of tax initiatives past, and if voters think they need to consider only one-half of the equation. 07/29/05 10:41 [comment / reprint]

Dragging, to the end

We really wanted this bipartisan session of the Oregon Legislature to work. It should have; but at this point, even few of its advocates are likely to call it a success when it it adjourns, as it likely will within the next couple of weeks.

It will adjourn by then mainly if, as now seems the case, lawmakers have given up on doing work of any substance beyond passing a budget - the one thing they are strictly obliged to do. And even that has come only with agony.

The latest Oregonian reports on budget progress has focused, necessarily, on closed-door conferences between the legislative leaders and Governor Ted Kulongoski (featuring shifting collections of players). The paper reported that in one of those meetings, after one futile effort at compromise after another (and the Rs and Ds are not very far apart on the numbers) fell apart, a silence draped over the room. These top officials sat there, looking at each other and saying not a word, for 45 minutes.

The Middle East isn't tougher than this. But at least the players in the Middle East have better excuses.

The leadership agreement emerging from the drawn-out talks was hardly a satisfying deal. The Republicans seemed to like it a little better than the Democrats, a signal that Republican will was stronger than Democratic will, even though two of the three power centers were in Democratic hands.

What's driving this unwillingness to compromise? It isn't the substance, at least not basically: The two sides were close on the numbers, and other issues could have been negotiated out (but often weren't). Probably it wasn't the personnel in leadership, either. On a personal level, most of these people seems to be adults who actually get along with each other reasonably well. The results may make them look like school children in the sand box, but that doesn't seem to be the right explanation.

The explanation seems to arise more broadly from the caucuses and more broadly than that from the two political parties. Headed in the 2006 election, with no more session ahead of them, neither party could stand a loss. Neither wanted to suggest a willingness to be rolled. Republicans especially probably were sensitive to what happened the last time substantial portions of their number actually worked with Democrats to try to resolve the landmark 2003 session: Few of those Republicans remain in the legislature. The Democrats probably have absorbed the lesson too.

Does this mean the only way the Oregon legislature (or in other states) can do meaningful work is under one-party control? An answer in the affirmative seems to be getting ever more unavoidable. 07/26/05 08:53 [comment / reprint]

Moving Southwest

Most intriguing transportation story so far in a year full of them is the proposal this week by Southwest Airlines, which said it - in effect - wants to quit the big regional SeaTac airport south of Seattle, and set up what would amount to its own airport closer to town.

The closeness to Seattle, of course, isn't the driving factor here. What makes this proposal so interesting is the idea that one airline could, less expensively, set up its own terminals, runways (on the existing Boeing field, but with major modifications), security system and much more, for less than it would pay by staying at SeaTac. It would run its regional flights, more than 80 daily including all of its northwestern operations, out the new location. The location it seeks actually is now called King County International Airport, and the county runs it, but it is not currently a schedule-run general purpose airport like SeaTac (or PDS or BOI or LAX, for example). Southwest would be building the structure for that.

The cost estimate may sound incredible, but it's not. Costs at SeaTac (my fingers want to keep typing "SeaTax") have been driven so high that private operators there across the board have been complaining for some time now. Whatever else this move may suggest, it should prompt the Port of Seattle (which runs SeaTac) to do some financial re-evaluations. If going outside the regional hub airport pencils out, as Southwest maintains it does, something is wrong in airport management.

Southwest warned specifically in its proposal, "If these airport costs continue to rise, Southwest may be forced to drastically cut service at Sea-Tac."

Whether the move will actually happen is another matter; it looks iffy at best. In the last couple of days it generated both support and blasts. (The questions it raises are many. Some, such as the transportation issues, do not seem especially difficult - given the proposed location near I-5 and bordering a large industrial district.) Others are much knottier. From a traveler's standpoint, for example, how would you handle plane transfers between Southwest and other airlines?)

But the concerns that led Southwest to push in this direction are worth consideration. 07/23/05 09:39 [comment / reprint]

1st CD: Turning unpredictable

Our intent in tracking the Idaho 1st District race was to track the prospects for the candidates - who was most likely to be prevail, who was a longshot.

We'll return to that soon enough. But for the moment, the race is almost perfectly unpredictable - as hard to call as any for major office in quite a few cycles. Our latest report is up. 07/21/05 09:58 [comment / reprint]

The superintendency

There has been no word from Superintendent of Public Instruction Marilyn Howard herself, but if the recent uptick in interest in her office on the part of others is any indication, she may not run again.

Elected twice to the education office, Howard has since 2002 been the sole Democrat in statewide or major office in Idaho. She ousted a Republican incumbent (a badly self-damaged one) in 1998 and turned back an emergetic campaign four years later. Her 2002 performance suggests she would not be easily to unseat in 2006. But the stress has to be wearing, and she's well into retirement age. (She started teaching in 1960.) There were indications even in 2002 that might be the last time.

Evidently that's the growing perception at least. The lesser indication of that is preparation on the part of several Republicans for a campaign prospectively for an open seat.Notable among these is a Republican with a statewide known last name, Steve Smylie, a veteran legislator and a teacher; he has been touring the state this summer to guage support.

More indicative is Democratic state Senator Bert Marley of McCammon. Also an educator, he says he is preparing for a run - not, certainly, against Howard should she file, but for the Democratic nomination if she does not. The level of effort expended so far indicates that is thought to be a reaslitic prospect. 07/21/05 08:53 [comment / reprint]

Gone fishin'

Amusing story in the Spokane Spokesman-Review about retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a continent and a world away from Washington where her replacement was being nominated. (No, neither I nor they made this up.)

She was on the St. Joe River, out in a remote stretch near Avery, fishing.

An S-R outdoor writer asked her whether she preferred fishing from a boat or standing out in the river. The latter, she said: "I don't want to be confined in some little boat when you can have a whole river around you. I sit on my butt enough."

The headline, of course, wrote itself: "O'Connor picks wade over row." 07/20/05 11:42 [comment / reprint]

HP: A bullet dodged?

As in any number of other places around the world, economic planners in the Northwest are inquiring minds: What effect will the massive round of Hewlett Packard layoffs have locally?

So far, HP isn't trotting out any local-effect numbers, only to say that about 14,500 jobs in the international megacorporation will be going away. That, of course, is many more than are employed at all of the Northwest HP operations (there are three big ones, one in each Northwest state - at Corvallis, Oregon, at Vancouver, Washington and at Boise, Idaho). But the cuts amount to just about a tenth of overall employment levels.

And if new CEO Mark Hurd is trying to trim unprofitable areas, the Northwest would seem to be an unlikely place. Operations in this area are heavily focused on the corporation's centerpiece, its printer operations. The Boise operations just wrapped up early publicity on its new low-cost color laser printer rollout. More critical than the prestige is the profit, since the printer division accounts for more than half of all HP profits.

We'll know soon. But don't be surprised if the Northwest is spared. 07/19/05 19:13 [comment / reprint]

Ongoing contemplation

The quote was ironic to say the least.

It came as Kevin Mannix took his leave as chair of the Oregon Republican Party. It was an overdue leave-taking, as some Republicans have noted, because Mannix is an all-but-announced candidate for governor next year, and he has opposition within the Republican Party.

The quote: "It was important to wrap up my responsibilities with the party. Now, I can move on to contemplate the governor's race."

Move on, in other words, to what he's been doing for quite some time. But a party structure headed by new Chair Vance Day of Salem (not be confused with Chris Vance of Washington) may find their jobs a little easier when they no longer have to deal with inside/outside candidates for governor. 07/17/05 11:26 [comment / reprint]

Cantwell-McGavick?

Now that former gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi has definitively taken himself out of consideration for the 2006 Senate race, Republicans have a job to do in trying to oust an incumbent Democrat, Maria Cantwell.

The key to do that, GOP chief Chris Vance has accurately noted, lies in uniting behind a single candidate right from the beginning. That was what the state Republicans did with Rossi's run for governor, and it came right to the edge of working. The approach was sound.

Whether that will happen in this case is not yet clear. Cantwell is perceived by many Republicans to be vulnerable (though she may prove tougher than some now acknowledge, her razor-close 2000 win notwithstanding), and so there is some attraction to the race. Diane Tebelius, an attractive candidate last year in the 8th House district, is one possibility, and she now seems likely to run. Vance himself is another.

But the most interesting news report on all this, in the Tacoma News Tribune, suggests that Republicans might line up quickly behind Mike McGavick, CEO of SafeCo. Though quiet in public, the story notes, "he’s quietly laid the groundwork for a campaign, making the rounds of GOP leaders in both Washingtons and rounding up endorsements from some of the state’s top Republicans. Some who’ve met with him expect him to declare soon."

These races get earlier and earlier. 07/16/05 11:21 [comment / reprint]

Press pressure

Most reporters and editors in local news media do not stay there - anymore, at least - for their whole careers; that was once fairly normal, but no longer. When they leave, where do they go? Most often, they go to public information or public relations jobs, frequently with government entities. This is a regular and frequent transition well known to those in the media.

One of the less-noted pressures on the news media below the national level comes right here, in the awareness on the part of reporters and editors that the subjects of their stories today may be their employers tomorrow.

This has especially pernicious results in a one-party state: It tends to dampen serious inquiry into the powers that be, especially because only one side provides almost all of the post-media jobs.

Some of this emerges with the reports that Associated Press newsman Chuck Oxley is leaving that position to become communications director (a new position) for the state Democratic Party. What's so unusual here is someone in the Idaho media going to work for a Democratic, rather than Republican, organization.

The blog by Spokesman-Review reporter Betsy Russell quotes Oxley, "I’ve watched this since ’94 when I came to the state. Every year there was just more and more imbalance. … They just continually run over the Democrats in the Legislature. A lot of our friends in the press have gone to Republican administrations – I thought maybe the other side needs some help.”

What friends? Russell notes a few of them (and this is just a small sliver): "Notably, in recent years, longtime AP reporter Mark Warbis left to become press secretary to Republican U.S. Rep. Butch Otter, both longtime AP correspondent Bob Fick and former Idaho Statesman political reporter Wayne Hoffman left journalism for jobs at state agencies under the Kempthorne Administration, and former Idaho Statesman business reporter Mike Journee became press secretary for Gov. Dirk Kempthorne."

Idahoans might bear that in mind the next time they hear complaints about the supposedly "liberal media." 07/15/05 13:14 [comment / reprint]

Primary redux

So toss all those calculations about how the new top-two Louisiana-style primary will affect Washington politics. Looks now as if it won't happen, and we're back to the Montana (or Idaho) style. Washington voters, in other words, still will not have to register by party, but will be limited in primary elections to selecting one party within which to vote. Traditionally, Washington voters have been able to cherry-pick among parties. (Fine headline at the Seattle P-I: "It's Back to Pick-a-Party PRimary.")

The decision by Judge Thomas Zilly sides with the odd bedfellows of the state Republican and Democratic parties (and even the Libertarian, which also joined in). They had contended, as Zilly recounts, "that Initiative 872 is unconstitutional because the
Initiative prevents voters who share party affiliation from selecting their party’s nominees. The Republican Party also alleges that Initiative 872 forces the Party to be associated publicly with candidates who have not been nominated by the Party, who will alter the political message and agenda the Party seeks to advance, and who will confuse the voting public with respect to what the Party and its adherents stand for."

Zilly is evidently aware he's overturning the will of the voters here; he expressly says that in passing Initiative 872 "The voters were forced to choose between voter choice and party nominations, and the voters chose voter choice." In this case,

The State of Washington argues that Initiative 872 does not “nominate” political party candidates for public office, and does not create a nominating primary. Rather, the State contends that Initiative 872 makes “party nominations . . . irrelevant to qualifying candidates
to the ballot.” See State Response, docket no. 65, at 12. The State urges that unlike a “nominating” primary, Initiative 872 is a “winnowing” primary in which the primary voters do not choose the party’s nominee. Changes by the Initiative to Wash. Rev. Code
§ 29A.04.127 revised “nominating” to “winnowing.”15 The Republican Party argues that calling the primary a “winnowing primary,” rather than a “nominating primary,” does not distinguish the Initiative 872 primary system from the blanket primaries rejected in Jones and Reed, and does not change the fact that Initiative 872’s primary nominates candidates.

The state is exactly right: "winnowing" is what the Louisiana-style approach does. In many cases the system may result in a Republican and Democrat running head to head in November, but in many other - in many Seattle districts, and in many rural eastern Washington areas - it may result in two members of the same party battling it out in November. It winnows, doesn't nominate. It does have the effect, most likely, of weakening the party structure as a result, but that wasn't a key argument here.

Zilly's take was that this "transforms the party’s right to 'nominate' into a right to endorse," and he said the right to "nominate" is a constitutionally-protected right. There's probably some truth in that, but one wonders at the value of another central point the judge makes: "The association of a candidate with a particular party may be the single most effective way to communicate to voters what the candidate represents." Washington voters may have been conteding, in their vote for I-972, that that's exactly what's wrong with much of our politics: Domination by ideological purists, instead of the centrist pragmatists who led Washington so well for so many decades. 07/15/05 14:03 [comment / reprint]

The ever-deepening incident

If you have a single situation and from it draw conclusion A, that doesn't mean you can't also draw a non-conflicted conclusion B. That point may be about to come home in the never-ending battle over charges in the 2003 Boise mayoral race, and could possibly open it to levels of interest hitherto unforeseen.

That race for a nonpartisan open seat featured two identifiable Republicans, developer Chuck Winter and Ada County Sheriff Vaughn Killeen, and an identifiable Democrat, legislator David Bieter. Prevailing speculation pre-election day was that Winder, who seemed to be getting the larger share of the Republican support, and Bieter would end up in a runoff election.

Winder had been dogged by allegations that he had a sweetheart property management deal with the city of Boise. The whole situation - contracts, payments, various parties involved - was complex. Both city officials and Winder delivered explanations of the deal which may have been fully explanatory or, depending on one's point of view, maybe not. The Boise Idaho Statesman has written about the matter, but not in depth - not depth sufficient to resolve the various questions.

Just before the election, a wave of anonymous calls swept around Boise focusing on the Winder-city deal. Since the city was then just coming off a big scandal in the Brent Coles administration, these calls had resonance. The end result put Bieter in first place and with just enough of a lead - by a few hundred votes - to avoid a runoff.

The election settled the leadership of Boise's city hall, but it left behind a web of mysteries.

The first and most obvious is: Who was responsible for the last-minute calls?

That part has begun to emerge into the light. Winder, understandably, has wanted to find out, and because the failure to report those political expenses probably was a violation of city code, the city would like to know too. (Ironically, the beneficiary of the activity - Mayor Bieter - never has been seriously accused of being involved, and as details have developed his innocence seems clear.) Tax activist Laird Maxwell (whose partisan work has involved badgering Republicans to be ever-more conservative) has said he was responsible for the ads. Boise attorney Bill Litster, who also has worked on Republican efforts, was associated with the effort (as an intermediary at least). From this we can reasonably put together the identity of the backers.

As that spotlight has brightened, another aspect of the tale has re-emerged: Winder's relationship with the city and their property management agreement.

A couple of weeks back another Republican Boise attorney, Jim Harris, sent to Boise-area news organizations (Ridenbaugh Press was among the recipients) a packet of materials - letters, transcripts, contract copies - which he said resulted from his inquiry into the Winder lease deal in the fall of 2003. Winder said that he was not involved with the last-minute ads but "became interested in this situation during the early fall of 2003 after several rumors circulated about Winder's dealings with the City and the Boise Depot property. As a private citizen, I undertook a rather thorough review of the public documents and an investigation into the involvement of Chuck Winder and his Boise City related business, particularly the issue of how he discharged his 'management duties' at the Boise Depot. To my knowledge this was the only relatively complete investigation ever done (to this date)."

He said he concluded that, whatever one thinks of the last-minute telephone campaign, "there is significant factual substance to the message delivered ..." What he proposed is an investigation into the whole issue, to get to the bottom of it.

Harris' documentation is extensive makes a substantive case - whether conclusive may be another matter.

He most especially blasted the Idaho Statesman, which he said had ignored the substance of the phone calls and did not fairly report the Winder lease situation. That point has been re-upped in a new piece by the Boise Weekly looking at the situation. It noted that

Following the last-minute calls on the eve of the election, Statesman writers Dan Popkey and Brad Hem consistently described the content of the ad as "erroneously," "inaccurately" or "unfairly" linking Winder to City Hall and Gary Lyman, the former mayoral chief-of-staff ousted during the Brent Coles spending scandal of 2003. In a May 12, 2005, editorial, the paper also called Citizens for Trustworthy Government, the then-anonymous group behind the call, "a secretive band of rogues" who "duped" and "lied to" voters. This is where Harris's complaints begin.

And when Popkey ventured on radio, Republican conservative Rod Beck asked him about the Harris report; Popkey (according to the Weekly) said he'd not seen it - that the real issue is the legal violation of campaign laws and the shrouded people behind it. That's an issue, all right, but why necessarily is it the only one? As to the new developments in the substance of the ad, the Statesman hasn't substantially reported on it all, either, leaving the Weekly a free field. Which seems odd.

More questions emerge ...

Why did the Harris materials emerge almost exactly at the time when the "John Does" responsible for the ads were becoming uncovered?

How serious is, or was, the situation? Harris seems to be referring to a loss to the city of about $4,000 in office space rental, hardly an enormous amount, especially since there's no indication that Winder enriched himself. But Harris does suggest a pattern of lawbreaking - is there more to this than meets the eye? Is something more going on here than a single, small-scale, lease deal now seven years old?

From a political standpoint, at least, something surely is.

Winder was the candidate of choice for much of the Boise Republican establishment, but he has remained the focal point of criticism for an apparently substantial number of conservatives for long after his candidacy has ended. Why? What's the real war going on here - and what really are the stakes?

The "John Does" may be emerging, but the work of solving the attendant mysteries apparently is only beginning. 07/14/05 13:34 [comment / reprint]

- Randy Stapilus