Reader note: See update below based on Toby Nixon's comment at #7.
Apparently Mayor Greg Nickels isn't allowed to advocate for his preferred "tunnel light" option on his City website. Is it me, or is this yet another example of Seattle's nannyism going too far?
If a reporter calls Mayor Nickels on City property and asks him what he thinks of replacing the viaduct and the March vote on the matter he can tell him what he thinks, right? If a constituent emails or writes to the Mayor on the matter he can respond via City email or on City letterhead, right?
So, what's the real difference between those occurrences and someone going to the Mayor's website and seeing which option he prefers? I don't like the tunnel option in the least at this point (I prefer the surface street option), but now we've reached the point elected officials can't express themselves about City issues appearing on a ballot?
Dumb. Not as dumb as policing a four-foot rule, but dumb.
****
UPDATE: Toby Nixon adds an informative comment at #7 worth discussing a bit further.
I'm well acquainted based on my past and current employment for the need to avoid using public resources to support campaigns. My complaint with this issue though is that the application of the statute in question really starts to stretch the intent of the law in my view.
When it came into effect in the 1970's, the Internet as a tool of communication in policy and politics was non-existent. Moreover, we didn't have the same sick and frequent fascination with governing by plebiscite rather than holding elected officials accountable at the ballot box. The intent of the law Nixon references seems directed towards ensuring primarily that officials are not supporting their own campaigns, or those of other candidates, on the public dime. That is all well and good.
In this case, however, we're really approaching a gray area. In theory, Nickels could put video of a press conference online where he makes a presentation on his preference for the Viaduct and takes questions accordingly. But, he can't put up a page that advocates his preference for a major city issue. The underlying statue has an obvious purpose, but this seems to be a fuzzy area.
Moreover, one clause Nixon includes is interesting, referring to the prohibition on the use of public resources unless the official is engaged in: "Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency." I don't know about you, but I expect a Mayor or similar such elected official to use their website to tell people their position on the issues of the day. And if the debate over replacing the Viaduct isn't Seattle's issue of the day, what is?
Now, we have a lame advisory ballot that isn't likely to solve anything for a number of reasons. Heaven forbid the public be allowed to see directly at Nickels' website which option he prefers. Such a restriction just doesn't seem right.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 24, 2007 12:09 AM | Email ThisDoes that mean when the issue of a new mayor comes up he will not campaign for himself, given he is on the ballot?
Posted by: Right said Fred on January 23, 2007 08:41 AMIf Seattle wants the State taxpayers to pay for their folly then the State voters should be permitted to vote on it.
Of course, if voters are going to continue to vote on everything then we should look at removing the legislature completely since the voters are having to do their jobs for them.
Posted by: Monroe Parent on January 23, 2007 08:49 AM"No elective official nor any employee of his [or her] office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. However, this does not apply to the following activities:
"(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body or by an elected board, council, or commission of a special purpose district including, but not limited to, fire districts, public hospital districts, library districts, park districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts, to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board, council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view;
"(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry;
"(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency."
Thus, the council CAN adopt a resolution in support of a particular viaduct alternative. The mayor CAN, in response to a question from a reporter or citizen at a press conference or by letter, state his support for his preferred alternative. The mayor CAN use public resources to post objective information that states facts about the alternatives, but cannot advocate for one alternative over another; we have a strong prohibition on use of taxpayer-funded public resources for campaign purposes. The abuses of public resources to support campaigns had become so bad that the people put and end to it, and I don't think we want to go back to the days when campaigns were run by public employees using public funds from public facilities.
Then it will just be immaterial to the LEFT!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on January 23, 2007 09:57 AMEspecially, with a balance of power, she definitely had a conflict of interest.
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2007 10:34 AMThe list is endless...the two that come to mind are, John Ladenburg, Pierce County Exc. & Chair of Sound Transit...spent Pierce County tax dollars on a county Prop. #1. It is my remembrance, that he could have gotten a $10,000 fine and jail time...all he got was a slap on the hand and a "NOW NOW JOHN" from the PDC.
The other one that is up front in my memory is the 2003 / 2004 I-890 Smoking Ban, where just about every RCW & WAC rule, on how to run a campaign was stepped on. The list of Tacoma City Council Members, Pierce County Health Board Members, Pierce County Employees, Tacoma City Employees and Campaign Contributor that were in violation are far to numerous to list, but only the American Cancer Society paid a small fine.
The rest were just forgotten about because the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, (the sponsor of all smoking bands in the US) gives LARGE sums of money to the state of Washington & Demorat Champaign's!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on January 23, 2007 11:22 AMKeep on yacking, kids. Y'boy had a bad night last night.
"Please trust me even though I have no plan and refuse to listen to the people, the generals, and my military, but I'll do surge #3 and pretend it'll work until I leave office, after which an adult will take over."
PS> Jim, when does your shift start at McDonald's?
Posted by: swassociates on January 24, 2007 07:03 AMWashington libs had better up the bid before all the homeless move to Florida. Florida is giving away houses to the homeless. These have real roofs and are in sunny weather. The libs can't do much about the weather in Washington but they had better upgrade those tents before they loose their voting base.
Former WA resident
Posted by: In Texas on January 24, 2007 07:22 AMIf the Mayor owns and pays for his own website with non-public dollars, he is more than welcome to advocate for a particular position on a ballot measure. If it is public dollars paying for his website, then he must tread lightly. If he was to put up video recordings of him advocating his position in an attempt to garner support for the ballot measure then he would be breaking the law.
There were many people in this state just this last election cycle that were fined 1000s of dollars for using public facilities (not dollars, just facilities) for promoting specific candidates. Instead of slaps on the wrists, there should be jail time and automatic impeachment of candidates and/or ballot measures whose campaigns break those laws.
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2007 08:35 AMI clearly don't think the PDC or the ethics boards are yet in the 21st century when it comes to such things, but they're unwilling to change themselves; they want the LEGISLATURE, not the board, to take the heat for what would be widely spun as "backing down" on ethics, even when we're talking about something that might be a de minimus use of state or local resources.
As for the use of the "bully pulpit" by the governor or other elected officials to affect judicial races, initiatives, referenda, etc., I think you would find that they were careful to not use state resources for such purposes. Elected officials aren't muzzled by these laws. Did they do a mailing at state expense that told people to vote a certain way? Did she post her position on governor.wa.gov? I don't think so.
I mean, is the guy that bored that he has to harp on a tunnel all day long?
Posted by: John Bailo on January 24, 2007 04:56 PMNo and yes.
Posted by: Organization Man on January 24, 2007 05:54 PMAnd the results of that race would affect the executive branch and the balance of power.
The PDC sucks, BTW. It is one of the Democrat party apparatus.
Posted by: swatter on January 25, 2007 07:12 AM