King County Elections Director Sherril Huff submitted this candidate questionnaire to the county Democrats.
In answer to: "Have you ever failed to pay any taxes or court ordered judgments?" Huff checked NO. But that appears to be untruthful.
In 2007 Huff was slapped with a federal tax lien for over $13,000 in unpaid taxes from year 2000, assessed as delinquent in 2004.
(source: Kitsap County) The obligation was subsequently satisfied, and the lien released. (as opposed to withdrawn, implying that the IRS did not file the lien in error). But Sherril is free to explain how her federal tax lien is consistent with her claim of never having failed to pay any taxes.
(Oddly, the lien was outstanding in April 2007 when Ron Sims nominated Huff to the Elections post and the Council confirmed her appointment. Background check, anybody?)
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 05, 2009 05:50 PM | Email ThisOne would think this would be a obvious disqualifier....
Then again, last words of prior thread start by Stefan must be remembered; i.e.:
''this is Seattle.'' Posted by: Methow Ken on January 5, 2009 05:41 PM
The question is 'have you ever failed to pay...'
It does not specify a given time period. If she paid it, then she did not fail to pay. Don't get me wrong, I don't know ANYTHING about the person in question, I don't have any loyalty to her, I don't even live in King county (thank God, right?).
I'm not suggesting anyone is faulting her for having financial trouble at all - I certainly don't, hell I'm not doing awesome myself after a 3 month NICU stay for my daughter - I'm suggesting that the premise in the original post here is that she failed to pay, and since she eventually paid it, she didn't fail to pay in the big picture.
But hey, let's settle it once and for all with rational fact. Is this considered a lie by a court, and if so, let's cite the case where it's been seen that way in the past.
If I'm wrong then I humbly ask your apology. I'd guess I've got pretty good odds here though.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 5, 2009 07:53 PMIf she is willing to parse this simple question, why should we believe anything she says in relation to elections? I want my election chief to be up front and transparent, just like elections. I don't want someone who hides behind the meaning of "is".
Posted by: janet s on January 5, 2009 07:59 PMYou mention intent of law, and yet isn't that what many people argue for the 2nd Amendment, ignoring the plain english words that comprise it? It's wrong there, and it's wrong here.
Either she failed to pay or she didn't... If I'm wrong that she didn't, and the law backs up your side, then I do apologize for wasting time, but I'm glad that we looked into it and I learned otherwise.
I honestly doubt anyone will cite anything though. Cites to real authority aren't the norm here at all.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 5, 2009 08:10 PM$13.000 is no small dimes.
Did Ron S have something to do with it?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 5, 2009 08:20 PMthis is usually the proverbial straw and camel's back; so---let's indeed ask the "why's" and "wherefore's"
BECAUSE...
these are public servants--not involuntary draftees--THEY came to US, VOLUNTARILY, on their own power to apply for this government job--
so---a higher standard SHOULD BE expected with other people's money and votes and DEL-E-GA-TED--(NOT OWNED)---POWERS over us, folks--let's not forget that !
personally, i respect the direct honesty approach--if you had real life crap problems, just tell us voters--we may actually cut you some slack--we all have issues at times...
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 5, 2009 09:15 PMOh I'll end the suspense for you...they'd cut you off for "failure to pay" Posted by: PC on January 5, 2009 09:56 PM
She FAILED TO PAY in a timely manner. Now if she had merely been late without a LIEN being placed, that would be one thing. But to mealy mouth this for her really take an ethical lapse.
So in Andy's world, if one is asked "Have you ever taken money from a little old lady" of a robber who paid restituion, he would be able to say "No".
BULL CRAP!
Posted by: The TRUTH on January 6, 2009 12:48 AM"Who needs a cite to real authority?"
Sound Politics should just make this their official motto and put it up on the main banner.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 6, 2009 05:21 AMHuff certainly should have disclosed this Tax Lien in some manner....even if she footnoted it.
It's a PUBLIC RECORD for cryin' out loud.
This is likely the result of an IRS Tax Audit.
Would be nice to know more of the juicy details.
I think Huff owes it to the Public to explain the circumstances behind this lien....rather than let Cynical people think the worst.
Was it an "honest" mistake Sherril??
Like Charlie Rangel's "mistake"???
If you were convicted of armed robbery and subsequently served your entire sentence, can you truthfully answer "have you ever been convicted of a felony" by saying no?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 6, 2009 11:13 AMDo you need a cite to real authority for the proposition that the sun rises in the east?
Given the ignorance displayed in your comments here, I suppose you do. So here you go, from 24 USC § 6321:
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.
Will you STFU now?
Posted by: brett on January 6, 2009 12:40 PMOn your side, that was a dumb question the Democrats asked since she has paid the tax lien but only after a lot of communication (i.e. the lien and the months and months of back and forth). But, Stefan has a point also. Her failure to pay caused a lien to be placed on her.
I've seen a lot of dumb candidates' questions, but this one is dumbest of all.
Posted by: swatter on January 6, 2009 01:51 PM
If Sherril Huff believed that her eventual payment of the taxes entitled her to answer "No" to the question, she should have at least added a footnote to the effect that she had had a dispute with the IRS or had failed to pay taxes when due, which dispute/failure had resulted in a lien in 2007. Andrew - if you were Sherril and had to answer the same question under penalty of perjury, I doubt you would simply answer "No."
Posted by: Compliance Attorney on January 6, 2009 09:37 PM1. She failed to pay her taxes, and the govt put a lien on her. It is irrelevant whether she paid it subsequently or not. The fact that she let herself get into that position means she does not have the character required to hold authority over a position of trust that is the director of elections.
2. The fact that she chose to obfuscate the truth lends further proof that she is unfit to be in the job.
Elections are a judgement call. If Anthony thinks she is a fine upstanding citizen, then he can vote for her. With luck, the press will do its job and make sure the voters know this information. Then we can find out if the majority sides with the mealy mouthed Anthonys and Sarges of the area, or can see a severe problem when they see it. If she lied about this, what else will she lie about?
Posted by: janet s on January 6, 2009 10:01 PMsort because any taxes she paid between now and back to 2000 would have gone towards any overdue balance 2000. Or she still owes for 2001 to 2008?
King Co Elections is probably the under the table
cash she's always dreamed of. Posted by: mark on January 7, 2009 05:29 AM
that Paul Berendt helped Minnesota recount the
ballots for a Franken win. Now why on Gods Earth
would they (democrats) need him to help? Posted by: mark on January 7, 2009 05:35 AM
Stefan is lying avout Huff lying. It is simply not true that Huff lied. Try checking your facts FIRST Stefan before shooting off your weak pen. Talk about hypocrisy.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 9, 2009 09:31 AM