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

Bush numbers

As the Bush White House plans its first visit to Idaho next week, it can comfort that it will be moving to the most receptive part of the country.

A new SurveyUSA poll says that Idaho at this point is the most Bush-supportive state in the union, with 59%. That's up a bit from May and June but down from 62% in July.

Bush approval in Oregon is 41%, and in Washington 40%. The overal national level is the same as Washington's, 41%. 08/17/05 16:53 [comment / reprint]

New on the map

We won't get into the details of President Bush's first visit to Idaho, and - interestingly - to the small community of Donnelly, where he will spend two nights. Presumably, that will be at the new Tamarack Resort (maybe giving it a push), though no details have been released.

We did however want to post the give and take from this morning's gaggle - the White House press briefing - on the Idaho visit; the text is courtesy of Senator Larry Craig's office. . It follows:

For next week, a couple of you have asked for some specifics. On Monday, August 22nd, the President will make remarks to the Veterans of foreign Wars National Convention that's being held in Salt Lake City, Utah; open press. He will remain overnight in Donnelly, Idaho.

Tuesday, there are no public events, still he will be in Donnelly, Idaho. And Wednesday, August 24th, the President will make remarks on the war on terror, and that's in Nampa, Idaho. And then he'll return to the ranch that night.

With that, I'll happily take your questions.

Q: What's in Donnelly? What's he doing in Donnelly?

MS. PERINO: I'll see if I can get some more on that. I don't know.

Q: Is that a recreational stop, Donnelly?

MS. PERINO: I'll see what I can find for you. I don't have it right now...


...Q Dana, can you tell -- I'm sorry, the overnight is Donnelly, Idaho, on Tuesday night, or Monday night?

MS. PERINO: On Monday and Tuesday night.

Q In the same place, Donnelly, Idaho. Do you know how far that is from Boise?

MS. PERINO: I don't know how far that is from Boise, but I can -- we can look at a map and try to figure it out.

Q I am, I can't find it. Okay. And Tuesday, he has no public schedule in Donnelly?

MS. PERINO: No, ma'am.

Q Well, he must be doing something. Is he fishing with the Vice President?

MS. PERINO: This is all the information I have right now, and I can see if I can get you some more.

Donnelly may be a lot better known in another week. 08/15/05 12:31 [comment / reprint]

Liberalness, conservativeness

What do those political terms liberal and conservative mean anymore, anyway? In a day when rock solid conservatives are more properly labeled radical, and liberals are more defenders of a status quo - making them definitionally conservative - the language is in serious danger of warp.

That suggests any criteria for labeling a person, or a place, as "liberal" or "conservative" is dodgy at best, and more than likely a little misleading.

So while there's some kind of evident appropriateness to the roster of places on the the new survey by the Bay Area Center for Voting Research, it ought to come with a user's manual. Mainly: Don't read too much into it - or expect all of it to make sense.

Would've been interesting to know exactly how the criteria were selected and used, but the closest the Center gets to outlining methodology is to say, "the BACVR researchers examined voting patterns of 237 American cities with populations of over 100,000 and ranked them each on liberal and conservative scales." Great.

So what they came up with was that the two most "liberal" muncipalities in the country are Detroit, Michigan and Gary, Indiana. (A note: Only cities with populations over 100,000 were reviewed.) These are Democratic voting bases, no doubt - but are these places the far end of liberalism in America? More so than Berkeley, California, which trailed them?

In that context, the ranking of Seattle at 16 and Portland at 29 does not surprise, but doesn't bear really close inspection either. Portland's political culture, in particular, is pretty much on the left edge of the mainstream; it has a mayor who embraced the left-most candidates for president last year, as did his opponent. Even in Seattle that wouldn't have gone over well.

Still, the list makes some relative sense within the region. Here are the Washington, Oregon and Idaho cities on the roster. (Bear in mind the list contains 237 cities; the most "conservative" is Provo, Utah, a selection which will get no argument here, and Lubbock, Texas, ranks second in that regard.)

These do make a sort of sense: Boise as the most conservative of the region's larger cities, though we'd have swapped Spokane as more conservative than Vancouver.

But again, what does "liberal" mean when the two of these cities ranked most closely together - Tacoma and Bellevue - are such drastically different cities, with just drastically different political cultures? 08/12/05 12:31 [comment / reprint]

Tacoma radicalism

In its headline on the subject the Tacoma News Tribune called it "radical." And damned if it isn't.

And from a city manager on the job for less than a month.

Eric Anderson, hired to manage the troubled City of Destiny, has delivered a budget presentation which suggests things are a lot worse than most people have suspected - in an unsuspected area, as opposed to the police, personnel and contracting type areas which have bedeviled city management for so long.

No, this is, on the budget side. Anderson i's suggesting that city expenses are fast outstripping revenue, and the path ahead carries the marker "backruptcy."

But that's not the half of it. Anderson's proposed solution at first sounds par:

1.Budget: Balance fiscal year 2006 & 2007-08 biennium budget -without cuts to services

2.Manage benefitsin context of total compensation

3.Fiscal discipline: Live with budget

But those point beg the question. Here's his basic prescription:

1.Maintain fiscal discipline

2.Establish fees for Fire, Police and Library services

3.Eliminatecity Property Tax entirely

4.Eliminate city B&O Tax entirely

5.Reduce city Utility (Gross Earnings) Tax

In other words, a massive - dramatic, radical - shift over to user fees. To continue this, here is Anderson's rationale for user fees: "Why User Fees?1.Everyone pays2.You pay less than with Property Tax (‘cause everyone pays)3.Easy to understand 4.You can see exactly what you’re paying for"

And for getting rid of the property tax? "Why Eliminate City Property Tax?1.Not everyone pays2.Few know how much they pay3.Fewer know who they are paying4.Even fewer know how it is used5.No one can judge the value of the service they are buying"

One immediate response is that, in terms of taxation, this ia extraordinarily regressive. On the other hand, it could undercut a whole lot of the tax protestation going on out there, and may force a lot of people to rethink tax policy.

Expect this shot to reverberate widely around local government circles. 08/10/05 13:08 [comment / reprint]

Starting line

This didn't take long - less than a week after the end of the 2005 Oregon legislature, and already at least one primary is surfacing.

For this we look to House District 16 in the periodically competitive area of Benton and Linn Counties, to Democratic Representative Kelly Wirth. The challenge is underway.

It was announced on Blue Oregon by activist T.A. Barnhart, in these terms: "We have a problem here, a legislator who may well have set a two-session record for most unexcused absences. Our incumbent Democrat has not shown up for us in Salem, and what was clear to many of us last year when we voted for her opponent in the primary has become unmistakeable to even more people this year: We have to do better than this."

He is a supporter of Sara Gelser, who opposed Wirth in the primary last time and apparently will again. 08/10/05 11:03 [comment / reprint]

Enumclaw mutuality

We really weren't going to say anything about Enumclaw. But when the way people think about a piece of Northwest geography undergoes a sea change, well, here we are.

Up to this year when most of us heard the word "Enumclaw" - as in the small Washington city - most of us probably associated it with an insurance company. Mutual of Enumclaw. An ordinary, uncontroversial, insurance company, of a piece with the small, rural city out in the hills 45 miles southeast of Seattle, of around 11,100 people.

But there may have been something prescient in the Native American meaning of the word: One of the derivations is "thundering noise." So.

In July, an emergency medical team was called to a farm located near Enumclaw (though some local residents would rather it be described as "west of Auburn"). Here is Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Robert Jamieson's description of what happened: "He was in flagrante delicto with a horse, leading to injuries so grievous that the man succumbed. Investigators were shocked to learn that people had been stampeding to the farm for the purpose of having their way with critters." A cathouse with a full range of species?

Okay, freeze-frame - you can see right there why Enumclaw is in the process of rapidly getting stuck with a new reputation. Writers just can't leave this one alone.

And similarly important: Neither, for that matter, can the inimitable state Senator Pam Roach, whose legislative district includes - wait for it - Enumclaw.

Her proposed legislation, which would make bestiality a low-grade felony, is not unusual; many states have had and still have similar laws on the books (though animal cruelty statutes presumably would be enough).. But this is Pam Roach pushing the measure, and so unnaturally pungent sound bites emerge. In Jamieson's column, for instance: "This is not something a stallion wants to be involved with."

Poor Enumclaw. Such a nice town. 08/09/05 12:14 [comment / reprint]

Punishing all

Reflecting on the new Boise policy of enforcing the alcohol ban on the Boise River - no more enjoying a beer while floating down the river - Idaho Statesman letter writer Benjamin Gibson put his finger on the larger issue, and - very shrewdly - the bigger one still that connects to it.

"With today's punish-one, punish-all societal mentality," he writes, "it comes as no surprise that a couple of random miscreants with a penchant for normal unruly youthful behavior can collectively and effectively ruin it for the rest of us. I can't blame them though. You won't change the way kids behave by passing codes that punish everyone else. They'll move on to some other medium where they can cause their trouble. Whatever that is, our bumbling leaders will likely outlaw it, too. (See beer at the fair). This type of blanket solution is just plain laziness on the part of our elected officials. It's yet another one-size-fits-all deal quickly enacted to stifle the few bothersome complaints being made. Remember the Ten Commandments? Wait and see what will happen with the fireworks next year."

That's a larger and realistic concern, all right. Then Gibson adds the related bigger picture:

"Is it just me or does this city get more boring every year?" 08/09/05 09:36 [comment / reprint]

City Hall rewind: Sage counsel

On hearing that former Boise City Attorney Susan Mimura has filed paperwork preparatory to suing the city for half a million dollars, as followup for her dismissal in connection with the city hall scandal of three years back, Boise observer Dave Frazier has on good advice on his site:

"When you are the center of attention and everyone around you goes to jail, the smartest thing two years later is keep your finger off the rewind button."

She might want to consider that sage counsel before matters go to the next step.

Or, not, and the rest of us can sit back and watch in ongoing fascination. 08/07/05 21:12 [comment / reprint]

Better days

On the last day of the 2005 session of the Oregon Legislature, I gave up watching relatively early, at a good moment.

The Senate had just done something that might help, in powerful and practical ways, some of the most defenseless people in the state. These people are the elderly residents of mobile home parks, people who in many places live there because they can afford nowhere else. Many of them live in homes too old to sell or move, but may be forced to move when park owners sell out to developers. (That's one frequent scenario; there are many variations.)

The bill in question on this last day of the session, House Bill 2389, would provide a variety of assistance. It would provide some direct aid and tax help for the residents and park owners and ease passage for waiting some rules for moving homes from one place to another where local land use rules are prohibitory. (This is a much more narrow kind of exemption than Measure 37.)

The bill was advocated with spirit, voted for overwhelmingly, and left some happy activists walking out.

Would be nice to report that this late scene of the session were typical. Alas. That last day of the session continued on into the evening, into the early morning, on to sun rise. Little good was likely to come from such exhaustion, and little did.

It's sad; there's a lot of talent here, and no little civility, and yet it all came to so little. The bulk of the important subjects on which the lawmakers really should have acted, were left on the table. The big item on which it did act, the budget, was developed largely through secret maneuvers - in a series of meetings so tightly held one wonders if the legislature might have actually run afoul of the state constitutional requirement that the legislature act openly.

The most encouraging sign may be the apparently starting effort for considering alternatives to the legislature as we know it. Shorter or annual sessions? Nonpartisan legislators?

We'll return to this. But, the occasional success notwithstanding - since those successes were all too few - the problem is serious.08/06/05 09:56 [comment / reprint]

Community level

You may not think of the sexiness quotient as being a big deal when it comes to governmental budgeting, but it easily can. That point came up dramatically in the Oregon House, when one of the final education budgets came up for discussion.

The budget (Senate Bill 5514A) included funds for a range of educational facilities, but the discussion zeroed in on bonding funds for community college. The bill as developed was generally bipartisan (though pushed by House Republican leaders), but the blasts came as well from both parties.

Representatives Vicki Berger, R-Salem, and Robert Ackerman, D-Eugene, both complained that the legislature has not provided state funding for capital expenses for the community colleges in 26 years. They noted that in past years, the colleges each played against each other, each petitioning legislators to provide for individual needs - and did better than this year, when they worked together to developed a comprehensive proposal for fulfilling needs. (That effort was called "the unity pledge.") That proposal, amounting to just over $110 million, was slice by a quarter by Governor Ted Kulongoski, and then sliced to only about a third of the original amount by lawmakers - and then reshuffled so that only a few colleges got much substantial help.

At least, Berger said, the new bill will allow Tillamook Bay Community College to move out of the only home it has ever had: a former mortuary.

They suffer from legislative neglect, Ackerman said. And Representativbe Bob Jensen, R-Pendleton, delivered a long, passionate (he seemed about to tearing up) talk on how underfunded they colleges were.

One of the points most of these people made was that community colleges tend to fly under the radar. They don't have the local visibility of K-12 schools, but also lack the "sexiness" of the major colleges and universities. But they are critical for a lot of people; in Oregon, community colleges educate more people in any given year than the major colleges and universities do. And those people are relying on them for skills to earn a living; without them, they'd be in a world of hurt.

Well. It was the session's last day, and House Majority Leader Wayne Scott said the bill wouldn't be reconsidered in any revised form. It was this or nothing.

So that it was. 08/04/05 17:51 [comment / reprint]

Papers wheeled & dealt

For about three decades the Idaho Statesman at Boise has been a Gannett paper, and it looked like it would stay that way forever.

In the modern corporate world, nothing is forever.

And something like the Statesman is more afterthought than anything else. The big news - from the corporate perspective - of what just happened between Gannett Corporation, the nation's largest newspaper chain, and Knight-Ridder (by some measures) the second largest, and fellow big operator Media News Group of Denver had to do with the shifts in control and publication in the two long-battling papers at Detroit.

The swaps of smaller papers - including the dailies at Boise, Olympia (the Olympian), Bellingham (the Herald) and Tallahassee (Florida, the Democrat) were side issues, probably rolled into the deal to make the numbers come out right.

From the Northwest perspective, though, there's this.

Gannett is suddenly a far smaller player in the region. It still has the Statesman-Journal in Salem, but that's its sole remaining substantial media property in the area; pre-deal, it owned the newspapers in the capital cities in Washington and Idaho as well as Oregon. The Olympian and the Herald will see Knight-Ridder management. (Tallahassee goes to Gannett.)

Knight-Ridder has been only a minor player in the region, importaint mainly as minority owner of the Seattle Times, where the local Blethen family has the majority share. (Did the Seattle situation play a role on their takeover at Olympia and Bellingham?) Abruptly, K-R is a significant deal in the region.

Gannett has had a long reputation for being money-hungry, wringing big profits out of local papers, and shorting local budgets. Traditionally, Knight-Ridder has had a somewhat less bottom-line orientation, though that has shifted in the last decade. Reporting on the swaps, the newspaper magazine Editor & Publisher notes this: "... reporters believed the transactions with Gannett -- which also involved papers in Florida, Idaho, and Washington -- had "nothing to do with making Knight Ridder stronger journalistically and everything to do with increasing our value on Wall Street."

From Gannett, on personnel:

Boise, ID: Leslie Hurst becomes president and publisher of Gannett’s Lansing State Journal. She was president and publisher of The Idaho Statesman. Michael G. Kane, who was president and publisher of the Lansing State Journal, will become president and publisher of the Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle.

Bellingham, WA: Christine Chin will join the staff of The Arizona Republic. She was president and Publisher of The Bellingham Herald.

Olympia, WA: Bob Ritter will remain with Gannett in a position to be announced later. He was president and publisher of The Olympian.

And at Knight-Ridder:

Knight Ridder said that the Boise newspaper will report to Senior Vice President Hilary Schneider. The two Washington state newspapers will report to Paula Ellis, vice president/operations. At the same time, Knight Ridder announced these executive changes at the papers:

Mike Petrak, Knight Ridder vice president/marketing, will become president and publisher in Boise. John Winn Miller, senior vice president/marketing in Tallahassee, will become president and publisher in Olympia. And Glen Nardi, senior vice president/operations at the San Jose Mercury News, will become president and publisher in Bellingham.

More developments coming on this front, soon. 08/03/05 16:34 [comment / reprint]

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