King County Councilman Reagan Dunn has introduced a Motion for No-Confidence Vote on Dean Logan.
Council Chairman Larry Phillips says "It is far too soon to consider any change in leadership at King County Elections"
What King County elections needs now is stability. This Council will not support any change in leadership at this critical moment, especially one that is purely motivated by politics.Of course Larry Phillips wants "stability" in the King County Elections office. How else are Ron Sims and some of the Council Democrats going to be "re-elected"? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 04, 2005 06:19 PM | Email This
..and if anyone wants to buy a 1993 Jaguar XJ6, let me know.. :)
Posted by: bmvaughn on May 4, 2005 06:36 PM Good evening interesting stuff.I agree as far
as dean logan is concerned.He needs to go.
However once again I believe reagan dunn is
grandstanding.Why do it now why not a couple
weeks ago.
Its 2 weeks from the all important caucuses.
Never before in the all the years I have been
involved in politics have I seen a county
political party leadership in the tank for
a candidate like they are for reagan dunn.
This whole thing reeks of corruption.the
king county gop leadership are so hell bent
in getting reagan dunn elected.That they don't
see how they are hurting the party in king co.
They are sending the message that once again
if your a conservative we dont want you!!
Otherwise why go after steve hammond.Steve
worked his tail off for his district and this is
the thanks he gets.
This county is stacking the deck against
steve hammond.they are freezing people out
from being delegates that would support
steve.they have district chairs that are
on reagan dunn's campaign staff.
They shouldn't being doing both.the worst
part about that is that the king county gop
chairman doesn't have a problem with it
Gee I wonder why?
Besides, the BIAW didn't just cherry pick precincts like the Dem's are doing, they will find names on their lists that are already accounted for
nonewgastax.com by the way, donate and get the petitions going out. We can't count on our representatives to look out for us, so they better look out for what's coming
Posted by: Jim L on May 4, 2005 07:34 PMPlease start your own blog. Either that, or stay on point.
Posted by: Danny on May 4, 2005 08:15 PMQuestion: Can Larry Phillips remain chair whenever he is aboard the mother ship?
One suspects that with the Dem party functionaries, not even a smoking gun would be a smoking gun.
The very best that could said of Logan is that he exhibits gross incompetence. Anything worse involves possible prosecution. On what planet would this not be grounds for a no-confidence vote?
Stephan, thanks again. As usual the reactions by the dems are nearly revealing as the main subject.
This story is in part about reagan dunn.
I'm sorry if it bothers you.The fact of
the matter is its the truth.Since no one
else seems to have the guts take these
people on I have to.
Thats right nowhere on the other blogs I
have seen has anyone talked about it.
nor has anyone in local talk radio
other than kirby wilbur. they dont even care
about it.So I have to do it for them.
If I have to screem this at the top of my lungs
so everyone knows what they are doing
I will.
I commend Reagan Dunn for his efforts in producing this motion. By the way, how much are these "two major reviews – an independent management audit and a Citizens’ Elections Oversight Committee" going to cost the citizens?
Posted by: Larry in Renton on May 4, 2005 10:04 PMKeep making a stink, people!
Posted by: Michele on May 4, 2005 10:09 PMIt almost seems orchestrated! To be timed for when public interest is renewed with the Rossi contest.. To have Logan step down now may falsely calm the public's outrage and will not solve King Countys problems at all. Later on - when all is revealed - would be a better time to take down Logan...and Sims and Phillips......etc...
Posted by: Deborah on May 4, 2005 10:34 PMYeah, this move seems 'orchestrated' to me too. But with everything I've seen across this country, I've come to realize that both major political parties resort to this sort of thing. I just take it for granted, and wait to see if their walk matches their talk. Dunn strikes me as an opportunist, waiting to see when and which way the wind blows before he makes his move. But if he's willing to follow this through, then he's far ahead of the dems.
Posted by: dad4 on May 4, 2005 10:58 PMReagan Dunn's no-confidence announcement is clearly a politically timed effort to get face time prior to the caucuses. I don't trust him, nor the GOP powerbrokers.
The lack of integrity among the WA GOP leadership and the lack of courage and leadership by those with integrity is extremely troubling.
Although it is not the reason why I am moving my family out of state I will rest easier knowing that I am not being governed by such anymore.
Posted by: Jericho on May 5, 2005 12:24 AMSOS
Posted by: Arky on May 5, 2005 04:56 AMSeems largely symbolic to me. Is it designed to get you red-faced? Oohh--that hurts! (...as they walk away pouting with a BIG severance package & pension...)
I always viewed it as some silly thing like voting your town a nuclear-free port. More akin to filling out a comment card in a restaurant.
Kick them in the pants. Vote them out. Catch them in perjury under oath, and REALLY prosecute someone for a change. I'm tired of "I'm sorry's."
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 5, 2005 06:52 AM
Sorry I disagree.
Chris Vance if you read this, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 5, 2005 08:35 AMIf they want to push him then have him take on a psychophant, Jane Hague. Maybe a deal was made where Jane tells us the issues at KCEC if she doesn't get attacked in the caucases(sp?) or in the fall election. If these back room deals are done, it stinks, and don't tell me that everyone does it. Someone has to show integrity. How can we accuse Dean getting his running orders from Ron if Reagan and Chris get their running orders from Jennifer?
Sorry you all but on this I have to disagree. That stinks. I don't care if Goldy runs with this, I can not support anything like this. I have a different set of scruples. How about you all?
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 5, 2005 08:49 AMnepotism
n : favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)
Are you suggesting Sam Reed's influence in Logan's hiring amounts to nepotism? That's not how most people would use the word. Sounds more like standard professional courtesies to me.
Posted by: Ed on May 5, 2005 09:03 AMI would support him getting Jane. I heard Steve Hammond on the Mike Siegel show this morning. He is a man who has his stuff together. Tell Reagan and the Repub machine to go after Jane. Do we need to start a write-in campaign?
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 5, 2005 09:05 AMPudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 5, 2005 09:08 AM Puddybud and everyone else,Lets understand
one thing about Jane hague and reagan dunn.
It was never going to happen.Jennifer dunn
and jane hague are long time friends.
So there was an understanding between hague
and dunn that he go after hammond.Not to mention
chris vance is behind this whole thing because
he wants to get back in jennifer dunn's good
graces.
I would be inclined to agree with what
your saying except for one thing.Reagan
lives within about 2 miles of the boundry
of jane hague's district.
This was a very calculated move dunn knew
exactly what he was doing
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 5, 2005 09:57 AMPudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 5, 2005 10:04 AMI can appreciate what you're saying, but it sounds like you want Mr. Dunn to move out of his district to run against Hague and be a carpetbagger. That's even worse! It's a shame the redistricting put two really good people against each other, but what's done is done. I will give Dunn the benefit of the doubt because he demanded Logan's resignation last month - so far, Dunn has been pretty consistent.
Posted by: Enron Sims on May 5, 2005 10:35 AM I don't care where reagan dunn lives.
I was simply responding to why he chose
not run against jane hague.As for dunn
calling for dean logan resignation.I said when
he first did it that he was grandstanding
then.Just as I think he is now.
Dunn wanted the publicity for his campaign
just as he does now. I think this is nothing more
stepping stone for dunn to lead to bigger
things.He is looking go back to DC and
everyone knows it.
As far as the upcoming caucuses are concerned
anyone has the right to run for office.
where I have a problem is when its not
done on a level playing field.
The king county gop leadership is trying
to stack the deck in favor of dunn by freezing
out those that would support steve hammond.
Not mention they have people in the leadership
that are on reagan dunn's campaign staff.
this is wrong and it needs to stop now!!
Guess we can politely disagree. I heard that Mr. Hammond's campaign manager, Donna Watts, is on the county party's executive board - isn't that a leadership position too?
My feeling is THANK GOD that we finally have a Councilman who is for accountability. The fact is, most people want to see Dean Logan go - but if nobody on the Council demands it, how will Sims get the message?
I really don't care what Dunn's motivations are. Maybe he does want to go to DC. Maybe he really is super-evil. I don't know what's in his heart. But for now, he's standing up for the right thing. We should give credit where credit is due.
Posted by: Enron Sims on May 5, 2005 11:26 AMAs to the charge of nepotism, Dunn was appointed to his seat (based in part on his mother's reputation), but he certainly appears to be qualified for the position. Further, since his mother has retired from politics and was not directly involved in his selection, it's rather difficult to claim nepotism. Simply being related to another political figure should not be a disqualification for office.
Posted by: timekeeper on May 5, 2005 12:41 PM Ok certainly we can disagree but don't keep
putting words in my mouth.For the record I am
not part of anyones campaign.If infact she
is his campaign manager it is not something
I was aware of. So what, the only people that
have say so over who is pco are district chairs
thereby they can influence the outcome of
the race.Which is what some of them are doing.
As far as it not mattering what reagan dunn's
motives are.This is what's most troubling about
some republicans in this state and in king
county.It should matter because character
and integrity should still count for something.
I never said reagan dunn benefited from
nepotism.what I said was This idea that
he would run against jane hague was never
going happen because hague is a longtime
dunn family friend and he would never have
run against her.thats all
1. Steve Hammond over Reagan Dunn.
2. Bob Ferguson--a Democrat who thinks like a Republican many times
3. Anybody but Jane Hague-Late-Dollar-Short! Although JH is Repub...she thinks like a a democrat.
4. Anybody but Carolyn "the Mouth" Edmonds
5. Anybody but Dow Constantine
6. Anybody but Courtney Love Patterson
7. Anybody but MARTIN LUTHER KING COUNTY Gossett
8. Anybody but Larry "I didn't vote" Phillips
9. Anybody but Dwight "Hair Club for Men" Pelz.
10. Anybody but Ron "good home training" Sims.
11. Irons for Freedom County Executive
12. Lambert even though she voted with Dems for Tent City.
13. Reichbauer okay
14. Headless Lucy for oumbudsman
15. LakeSimsGrammy for Sherrif
Lot's of holes in this list need to be filled with names for discussion.
one final point regarding this dunn-hammond
ordeal.I did a little research and donna watts
is not on the king gop executive board nor is
she a district chair.So whoever told you
that needs to get there facts straight.
There is only one candidate with king county
officials on his campaign staff and its not
steve hammond.
I agree!
"This Council will not support any change in leadership at this critical moment, especially one that is purely motivated by politics."
Excuse me...didn't you just say you wanted stability? Then how about a change that is motivated by NECESSITY?
I went to my caucus, and aside from being stuffy and disorganized, there was no way to know who was who and if they even belonged there. I even talked to people who said they were democrats and libertarians, but went because they were against the CAO and Hammond's folks had contacted them.
Posted by: BernyBoy on May 26, 2005 11:35 PMIt’s just that he’s a lightweight. Hammond the councilman was completely ineffective at blocking the CAO; and Hammond the candidate has a good chance of losing to a Democrat if he’s our choice coming out of the convention next month.
I don’t want anything to do electing a council where democrats hold six of the nine seats.
If that happened, property owners in East King County will have to build their living rooms out of sod, and we’ll have to give DDES officials the keys to our house.
Boy, are you out of touch. You say that Hammond is a lightweight because he did not quash the CAO!!!
There were 7 Council Democrats that voted for the CAO and 6 Council Republicans who voted against the CAO. It was all voted along party lines. If thousands of e-mails from property owners and hundreds of owners who spoke at the Council meetings did not change the Democrats' minds, then how did you expect Steve to quash the CAO????? Duhh.
What would Dunn have done to quash the CAO??? Duhh.
For years, Hammond has worked hard for property rights. He has been very effective in rousing the rural property owners to fight for their rights, thus giving the Democrats a headache. Hammond does not cooperate with the Democrats, the way that Dunn does. Hammond was voted back into the council by the PEOPLE, not the Party. Hammond does not try to be liked by the Democrat councilmembers like Dunn does. He is a man of high integrity, who voices the truth, even when it means he will be unpopular with the council Dems.
That is why the Democrats arranged for Dunn to run against Hammond.
Posted by: MAD, MAD, MAD on June 19, 2005 11:59 AM