The Seattle Times reports:
King County Councilmember Bob Ferguson plans to file as a Democratic candidate for prosecuting attorney, and Acting Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg also has decided to enter the race as a Republican, both political parties said today.I've found Satterberg to be decent, fair, accessible and a highly competent public servant, one of the best we have. I can't say I've agreed with everything the Prosecuting Attorney's Office has done while he was its chief of staff, but he's been forthright and honest when asked to explain the office's decisions.
Ferguson, on the other hand, has been a disappointment. He's campaigned as a new-fangled "independent" Democrat, but there's no there there. He makes promises, but doesn't keep them. I regret having endorsed him in his 2005 primary race.
Ferguson has the advantages of name recognition, campaign experience and being a Democrat in a Democrat-leaning county. But Satterberg, by qualifications and character, is the better person for the job.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 31, 2007 01:20 PM | Email This1) His inactive status with the Washington State Bar Association.
2) His failure to file ANY PDC reports of substance since early 2006.
Hmmm...sounds like a winner to me!
Posted by: Scott Olson on May 31, 2007 02:26 PMFailure to file PDC reports would not be a problem if Ferguson wasn't required to file them since early 2006.
Ferguson had $18,975.34 of campaign funds left over as of December 31, 2005 from his 2005 campaign for re-election to the King County Council. If Ferguson has not either raised or spent more than $200.00 since December 31, 2005, then he wasn't required to file any reports in the intervening 17 months.
As for inactive status, RCW 36.27.010 states: "No person shall be eligible to the office of prosecuting attorney in any county of this state, unless he is a qualified elector therein, and has been admitted as an attorney and counselor of the courts of this state."
This could pose a problem for Ferguson, since inactive members of the WSBA are not qualified to be "an attorney and counselor of the courts of this state". And generally, a person must be legally qualified to hold office at the time they file.
Ferguson can easily pay the current year WSBA dues. But is also behind in the CLE courses that would have been required since he assumed inactive status in 2004? It could be hard to schedule enough CLE courses before he files for office.
Would it be sufficient to apply for active status (and be eligile for active status), or would the clerical folks at the WSBA actually have to formally put him in active status by the time he filed?
Also, how would this law be interpreted?
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 31, 2007 04:01 PMMr. Glenn's status as an active member of the Washington State Bar Association, thus entitling him to practice law in this state, is not challenged. Nor does Mr. Miller challenge the fact that Mr. Glenn filed his declaration of candidacy on July 30, 1974.
State of Washington ex rel. Bickford v. Jacobson, 16 Wn. App. 473, 477-78, 558 P.2d 292 (1976)
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 31, 2007 04:08 PMIt is my experience the continuing education requirements and fees are pretty miniscule.
Perhaps the judgement of a Mr. Robert Ferguson is lacking for a prosecutor?
Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2007 04:23 PMRob McKenna was on inactive status in 2003 at the time he announced his candidacy for Attorney General. Of course, by the time he filed his formal declaration of candidacy in July 2004, McKenna had been readmitted to active status.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 31, 2007 05:24 PMThanks for keeping us all on our toes. My concern is that Bob held a shrimp feed fundraiser in September (http://www.electbobferguson.com/) and I don't see any reportings about that. Sounds like a violation to me...
Posted by: Scott Olson on May 31, 2007 05:26 PMLook into in his positions on any issue. Then reverse every last one of them and you will know my positions.
I can not imagine him ever prosecuting a
criminal.
I'm not being mean or lashing out.
That is my open, honest impression of Mr Ferguson as it would relate to his possible behavior as King County Prosecutor.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on May 31, 2007 08:41 PMI believe the answer is in order to keep his license active he must complete Continuing Education requirements.
Richard would know...but many lawyers, when done practicing, do not want the hassle of meeting the requirements.
Also he is due great credit for dumping Cynthia Sullivan - for the first time my vote counted in a County election.
So I personally like him, but in concert with Bart Cannon above I'd tend to vote in opposition to Ferguson on most substantive issues. If he were truly part of the CAO cabal, that would be fatal in itself - property rights are civil rights, no less, and the preening tomnoddies who seize your property to 'protect' it against you are the urban night-riders of this century.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 31, 2007 10:19 PMI've been in therapy for a long time solely to deal with the psycho-trauma inflicted upon me by...that woman. She was - I love the past tense when it comes to...that woman - my KC Council member, and a worse Ron Sims lickspittle and toady never walked the earth!
She came within an eyelash of dropping Tent City 4 in my backyard three years ago, and was stopped only by an angry phalanx of us uninc peasents armed only with the heat and justice of our rhetoric that turned her already pallid complexion more ashen that early May evening in 2004 at the Cedar Park gym.
I'll never forget seeing...that woman...at the end of the meeting, back against the wall and literally in a state of mortal fear trying to stutter and stammer her way out of serious political trouble. Claiming she "didn't understand" and "never knew" the degree to which the neighborhoods surrounding the Brickyard Road Park and Ride not only didn't appreciate the foisting of the camp upon them, but also the callous and disrepsectful way King County, in the form of...that woman, treated them.
Has Bob Freguson been a disappointment? Infinitely and eternally; be still my heart that I ever held out hope. But to ever, ever, ever reconsider endorsing him over...that woman???
Say it ain't so!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on June 1, 2007 09:40 AMBeing a council member requires you to be a good at politics. After you are elected you use these same skills.
Being a prosecutor is different. To get elected you need to be good at politics. However once elected you need a different set of skills for doing the job.
Being skilled and experienced in criminal law comes first, but even more so from the side of building, charging, and prosecuting the cases.
This is a skill set that Bob does not have. He handled corporate law fow a short time before entering politics. Nothing in his background makes him qualified for the job.
He is smart though, and given enough time he could learn the skills needed.
Satterberg on the other hand has no background in politics. So little in fact that both parties were trying to convince him to be their candidate. He is not smooth and polished in convincing people to vote for him. However he is an excellent prosecutor and has been groomed by one of the best prosecutors there is.
He is a smart man though and can learn the skills needed to keep himself elected. Norm wasn't a skilled political creature either, he was able to let his excellent performance on the job do that work for him, and that is something Dan has going for him.
So we have two candidates that can only do half the job. Each, through trial and error, can learn the other part of the job. Which part do you want them making mistakes while getting on the job training?
I would rather have someone fumble the ball on a political move than mess up a critical case.
And lastly, we know Bob has his sites on much bigger political positions. He is using this as a stepping stone in his career. Dan has shown this is what he wants to do and would have no desire to use this job to get another one. He, like Norm, would be our prosecutor, doing excellent work, for as long as we let him.
If you dismiss party motives there is zero reason not to want Satterberg for our next prosecutor.
Posted by: Truth Detector on June 1, 2007 09:51 AMLastly, he gets points for being an inactive 'officer of the court' a status every elected Lawyer should take when serving in any of the other branches of government.
I always find it funny when folks point to the lobbying laws in Olympia as a measure of credibility when there are so many part-timers actively practicing, and billing, all session, and year, long.
Also, there were mistakes made by Maleng - perhaps only unaddressed because of Norm's sainthood. Somebody's got to take responsibility for those, and Satterberg is the logical, if unlucky, candidate.
-Douglas Tooley
(King County Political Exile)