Showing posts with label op-ed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label op-ed. Show all posts

Islamic Community of Bosniaks in Washington

Sunday, March 17, 2019

Gov. Jay Inslee and Shoreline Councilmember Chris Roberts
were among the speakers at the 2011 grand opening of the Shoreline mosque
Photo by Mahir Dizdar


In light of the horrific events in Christchurch, New Zealand, the Shoreline Area News reached out to our friends at the Islamic Community of Bosniaks in Washington to see if there was anything we could offer and ask what they would like to say to the community.

Nihad Dozic, President of the ICBW, whose mosque and community center has been located in the Ballinger Neighborhood of Shoreline since 2011 (see previous article), sent this statement:

~~~~~
Muslims and Christians across the world were appalled to wake up to news of the terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, that killed and injured so many people, including children.

We extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends who lost loved ones in this senseless tragedy. To the people of New Zealand and to Muslim communities around the world: you are in our hearts and minds.

Far too often, Muslims suffer unimaginable loss and pain in the places where they should feel safest. Not long ago we remember too well the sorrow we felt when a senseless attack on the Islamic center in Quebec Canada claimed the lives of many innocent people gathered in prayer. 

Across US Muslims have experienced attacks on the mosques too.

To move forward as whole world, we need to recognize diversity as a source of strength, and not a threat. This week's victims were fathers, mothers, and children. They were neighbours, friends, and family members. As with every life taken too soon, the full measure of their loss will never be known. CBW condemns this attack, and will continue to work closely with local authorities our close friend, and others to take action against violent extremism.

Hate has no place anywhere. We must all confront Islamophobia and work to create a world in which all people, no matter their faith, where they live, or where they were born can feel safe and secure.

President of ICBW
Nihad Dozic



Read more...

Political cartoon: Happy new year...

Tuesday, January 1, 2019




Whitney Potter's non-political cartoons can be found with the Cartoon tag or in Features on the webpage ShorelineAreaNews.com




Read more...

Sen. Maralyn Chase rebuttal to REALTORS PAC

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Excerpt from REALTORS PAC that Sen.
Chase is referring to. Complete flyer
side 1 HERE and side 2 HERE
By Senator Maralyn Chase

I am writing in response to the misinformation in the mailer sent out by Washington Association of Realtors (REALTOR PAC) to voters in the 32nd Legislative District, and repeated in the SAN. (see Statement from the Washington REALTORS PAC)

The Public Disclosure Commission has never claimed that I made an ethics violation. However, back in 2002 the Seattle Times published an article asserting an ethics violation for my asking a question about the legality of the district organization accepting a campaign donation. I asked if it is legal for a person to donate directly to the legislative district in addition to my campaign. The answer ‘no,’ so no donation was made to the legislative district from that individual. End of story.

Unfortunately somebody notified The Seattle Times, which roared into action with a factually incorrect and misleading article which falsely reported that there had been an ethics violation. If the Seattle Times had simply lifted the phone, they would have heard firsthand from the PDC, that there was indeed, no violation.

The PDC exists to implement and enforce campaign rules and they did their job. They did not file a campaign violation report because it is not in violation of the rules to ask a question. Candidates regularly call the state PDC to ask questions about campaign rules. It is not a violation of ethics to ask questions about rules. The public should know that it is the PDC’s job is to answer questions from candidates who are running campaigns, and that the people at the PDC are also available to answer questions from the public.

Journalistic ethics and standards require that print media, and other media, report truthfully, accurately and impartially. The Seattle Times failed to be accountable to the public by correcting their article with an accurate and truthful account of the PDC’s findings. It is worth noting that an incorrect article in the Seattle Times does not constitute an ethical violation on my part. I leave you to decide whether or not failure to correct specious or inaccurate articles is a violation of journalistic principles.

Based on the uncorrected article in the Seattle Times, the Washington Association of Realtors asserts that there was a PDC ethics violation on my part. That’s slander. They owe voters, and me, an honest statement about the position of the PDC.

The Seattle Times has not satisfied their responsibility to fulfill the duties of a free press to accurately report the news. My campaign did ask the Seattle Times to retract false statements in their article, but they chose not to. The choices made by the Washington Association of Realtors undermines the public’s right to truthful information and undermines our democracy.



Read more...

Op-Ed: Shoreline District Court Judge Marcine Anderson says "The candidate I endorse is Joe Campagna"

Friday, November 2, 2018

Judge Marcine Andersonn
Shoreline District Court Judge

To the Readers of Shoreline Area News

Since 2010 I have served as one of your judges at the King County District Court in Shoreline. This year I am unopposed on the November 6, 2018 ballot for Judicial Position No. 2.

There is a contested race for Judicial Position No. 1. The candidate I endorse is Joe Campagna.

Yesterday, I received a political mailing from Citizens for Judicial Excellence (CJE) stating that I was part of a “team” that CJE endorsed.

Please know that I am not part of a team that includes Leonid “Les” Ponomarchuk. Please do not be fooled by the misleading mailers that imply that I am supporting the candidacy of Mr. Ponomarchuk. I have consistently endorsed, financially supported and campaigned for Joe Campagna.

Joe Campagna will be the best “team member” at the Shoreline District Court because he has worked hard to earn your vote. He has obtained the support of more than 50 judges across the state. You have seen him at community events all year. He is committed to judicial excellence and treating all people with dignity and respect.

On my desk is a card that I received from former American Bar Association President, Michael Greco, before I was appointed and then elected as a judge. I look at it every day. It reads:

“In the past year, the judiciary has faced many criticisms and threats to its independence. Despite these challenges, we must continue forward and prevent anyone from dismantling the framework on which our legal system is based. Without our judges and judicial system, the little understood organizational principle of our democratic republic – separation of powers—could not exist. It is imperative that our courts remain free from outside influence and intimidation in order to preserve what Chief Justice William Rehnquist so aptly termed the ‘crown jewel’ of our system of government – our independent judiciary.”

According to reports filed with the State, CJE spent over $50,000 to send mailings that trade on the good will and professional reputation that I hold with the voters in Kenmore, Lake Forest Park and Shoreline.

I did not seek the endorsement of CJE and was never asked by CJE if they could use my name, photo or accomplishments to promote Mr. Ponomarchuk

When large expenditures are made for a judicial candidate, the independence of the judiciary is called into question. Please question the recent CJE mailings and continue to promote an independent judiciary. Our community will benefit from a thoughtful vote by all of you. Thank you.

Judge Marcine Anderson
Shoreline


Read more...

Op-Ed: Why Vote No on Shoreline Proposition 1 Even If You Like Sidewalks

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Bus pad on Meridian - just needs a crosswalk to be connected to the other side


In 2016, I was chair of the Yes on Prop 1 campaign, in support of a property tax increase for city services.

This year, I am the treasurer of the No on Prop 1 campaign, in opposition to a 0.2% sales tax increase for new sidewalks. Here are three reasons why:

  1. Prop 1 comes directly from the Shoreline 2011 Pedestrian System Plan with the unimaginative goal of sidewalks on vehicle arterials every five blocks. But the 2018 Citizen Satisfaction Survey shows 37% of respondents want sidewalks in their neighborhoods. Only 24% want sidewalks on major streets.
  2. Prop 1 would collect $59,000,000 for 4.2 miles of new sidewalk, with $17,000,000 going to interest payments and other debt expenses we’d pay off until 2039. Of course cities can use taxes to repay debt for big projects - Seattle’s Safeco stadium is a recent example. But are 4.2 miles of new sidewalks really our “stadium”?
  3. The projects haven’t been vetted. In their 10/03/18 op-ed, People for Shoreline Sidewalks showcase a need for sidewalks to connect the bus stops on the east side of Meridian Avenue N. The estimated cost for this project is $3,451,000. But a crosswalk costing $7,000 would connect this bus stop to the existing sidewalk on the street’s west side, and a path could connect it with the Interurban Trail just steps away through the trees on the east side. The sidewalk project on 15th Ave NE in Ridgecrest is similarly unjustified. The project on 5th Ave NE, in the heart of the 185th Street Station Subarea, could be torn up during redevelopment before it’s paid off.

The Shoreline ADA Transition Plan is a current separate effort to fix sidewalks using an additional $20 car tab fee. Sidewalk fixing and updating is much cheaper than new construction, and we should fix what we have first.

Learn more about Prop 1, and maybe purchase one of our small batch local artisan yard signs, at shorelinesidewalksplan.org. If you, like me, are reluctant to vote no because you’re not anti-tax but you want a better plan, vote no and send your two cents to City Council at council@shoreline.gov. Because if Prop 1 passes, it’s set in stone.

Megan Kogut PhD



Read more...

Op-Ed: Approve Proposition 1 for Shoreline Sidewalks

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Bus pad on Meridian - but no sidewalk
We are People for Shoreline Sidewalks. 

Beginning in June 2017, along with more than a dozen other Shoreline residents, we served on a Sidewalk Advisory Committee organized by the City Council. 

We worked with city staff to establish criteria for deciding how and where to spend limited funds for sidewalk construction.

On the November 2018 general election ballot, Shoreline voters will be asked to consider Shoreline Proposition 1 to fund sidewalk construction. 

If approved, Proposition 1 will raise the local portion of the Sales and Use tax by 0.2% – that’s 2 cents on a purchase of 10 dollars – to build new sidewalks at 12 high-priority locations throughout the city.

We support Proposition 1 and we encourage Shoreline votes to Approve this ballot measure.
  • Proposition 1 will improve safety by separating pedestrian traffic from car traffic. In North City, pedestrians along 5th Avenue NE will no longer need to compete with parked cars for walking space. In the Westminster Triangle, we’ll build sidewalks along Westminster Way from N 145th Street to Shoreline Place. 
  • Proposition 1 will enhance access to transit by providing safe walking paths along bus routes. In the Echo Lake neighborhood, we’ll connect the isolated sidewalk sections at bus stops on the east side of Meridian Avenue N. 
  • Proposition 1 will connect communities to parks. In the Richmond Beach neighborhood, we’ll build a sidewalk along 20th Avenue NW from NW 195th Street to Saltwater Park. 
  • Proposition 1 will fill in gaps in our existing walking paths. In the Ballinger neighborhood, we’ll connect the disjointed sidewalks along Ballinger Way and along 19th Avenue NE. 
  • Proposition 1 will benefit all residents. In Richmond Highlands, we’ll build a sidewalk along Linden Avenue North from Shorewood High School to N 185th Street. Pedestrians and drivers will be safer as students go to and from school. 

There is never a good time to raise taxes. But Shoreline residents have consistently ranked sidewalk improvements as a high priority on the city’s biannual satisfaction surveys. If we believe that sidewalks are important, we must step up to the ballot box and vote to Approve Proposition 1.

Visit our campaign at www.ShorelineSidewalks.org to learn more about all 12 projects, and how you can help.

We’re going to put our 2 cents to work by voting to Approve Proposition 1. Please join us.

People for Shoreline Sidewalks

David Dailey
David Anderson
Robin McClelland


Read more...

Op-Ed: Help students by volunteering in STEM and the Shoreline Fair

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Ray Koelling wears his Shoreline STEM Festival shirt proudly
By Ray Koelling

It was with disappointment, tempered by a bit of eternal hope that things would change, that I read of the possible shutting down of the Shoreline STEM Fair.

Ask anyone in any STEM profession; aeronautical engineer, research scientist, science or math teacher, surgeon, laboratory tech, salmon geneticist, chemist or 1,000 others I could list. 

It is rightfully accepted as near axiom by those in the profession or those in the know that in general, students cannot shun STEM in K-12 and suddenly think about it for college or a profession. It is then too late. There is too much competition in the 21st century from other students in grades K-12 who have already spent those years expanding and honing a curiosity, creativity, love of STEM.

From its inception, the fair that I started has had the support of legislators from the 32nd and 46th. Great STEM teachers at LFP, Kellogg and Shorecrest helped my son along on his way to an M.S. in Aeronautical Engineering and were supportive of the STEM fair. And volunteers were always there.

At the Eastern Washington Regional Science and Engineering Fair that I started two years ago, we have the support of 35 teachers from 20 schools, the Spokane School Board and even ESD101. Along with the invaluable volunteers. And it is growing.

The result here has been six high school students who have each won all-expenses paid, 6-day trips to the International STEM competition to compete against 1,800 students from 80 countries and regions. 

In addition, between our regional, state and international competitions we have seen our students receive tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships, cash awards from NASA, cash awards from hospitals and watched scores upon scores of kids head to college with bright, stable, lucrative STEM careers ahead of them.

That STEM wave is all around Shoreline. Don’t let many of the kids of Shoreline and Lake Forest Park be drowned out of their futures by that wave. At Bremerton where I am still on the Board of the State Science and Engineering Fair, each year we award over 1.5 million dollars in scholarships, cash, travel and other awards to 600 kids from all over the state. 

Shoreline and Lake Forest Park students need to get in there and be a part of it. Competing students are from Mountlake Terrace, Seattle, Renton, Kitsap and many districts, both larger and smaller than Shoreline and from all over the state.

Last May, when I took four Eastern Washington students to the Internationals, Dhruik Parilkh from Jackson High right there in Mill Creek took home $58,000 dollars for his project that was second place in the world.

I urge some of you to step up on September 17th and volunteer. (See previous article: Will there be a 2019 STEM Festival)

It is not that much time in the context of a life when you consider the help it would bring to students. 

This flailing, stumbling and increasingly toxic world needs a more STEM educated public and citizenry. 

We ourselves have done a poor job in taking care of our environment and world. Kids who are students right now will be the (hopefully) more informed public and citizenry in the future than we have been in the past. But they need to start now.

Help students by volunteering in STEM and the Shoreline Fair. Don’t ignore the students of STEM who are the future of society and our world simply for a lack of a short time commitment in the present.



Read more...

Op-Ed: Washington State School Directors Association on current school district budgets and collective bargaining

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Tim Garchow, WSSDA Executive Director
Photo courtesy WSSDA
Since 2016, Tim Garchow has served as the eighth person to lead WSSDA during its 60-year history as a state agency. He has experience as a teacher, principal and superintendent.

From WSSDA Executive Director Tim Garchow

Ever since the gavel struck to close the 2018 legislative session, educators, administrators and organizations like WSSDA have been continuously working to assess the impact and implications of the Legislature’s response to the McCleary decision.

As we look across the state, it is evident that one of the impacts is an unprecedented amount of collective bargaining. I’m sure both sides of the table would rather be focused on back-to-school preparations because the children are why all of us work in education, to begin with.

Because of our shared focus on students, I’m confident that all parties involved will continue to bargain in good faith, and that agreements will be reached that respect the professional dedication of all school district employees while ensuring the continued solvency of our school districts.

While that is happening, there are three things that must be taken into account.

First, the amount of money that districts have to bargain with is not the same. School districts will not receive the same amount of funding for the same amount of teachers. This means that one district’s ability to provide a salary increase may be dramatically less than another district located right next door. That’s why comparing one district to another can be like comparing apples to oranges.

While all school districts are set to receive a standard amount of funding per teacher, some districts are set to receive additional funding based on the new formula set up by the Legislature.

Within that formula, there are a variety of factors causing a variation in funding available to districts, but one, in particular, is something referred to as the “regionalization factor,” which is intended to provide more funding to districts with higher housing costs. 

Because of regionalization, the amount of money districts receive for teacher salary can vary by up to 24%. Thus, we are seeing confusion at the local level when some districts are able to provide larger salary increases than others.

Second, state funding is set to increase, but local funding is set to decrease. Over a third of Washington’s school districts are going to lose 50% or more of their local levy funding. In many cases, districts and communities have prioritized these levy funds to provide enrichment programs for students or to meet other objectives of their strategic plan. 

Timing is also an issue. New state funding starts at the beginning of this school year. The limitations on local funding don’t occur until later. In many cases, that means an increase in funding now will be followed by a reduction of funding in the near future. This can add to the confusion around how much money districts actually have to bargain with.

Third, districts have been working hard to determine what they can afford. To help school districts navigate changes brought about by the new legislation and to ensure sustainability, the Legislature added a requirement for districts to create a four-year budget plan.

For months now, districts have been working with the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and their Educational Service Districts to determine the level of salary increase that they can afford on a long-term basis. 

This work has been difficult, complex and ongoing. Each district must continue to make a thorough examination of what they can afford based on their own unique situation, regardless of the agreements being reached in other districts.

The important thing to remember in all of this is that teachers, administrators and school boards want the same thing. We want the best possible education for our students. We all appreciate and respect the role that each other plays in making that happen and we realize that none of us could do it alone. We acknowledge the professionalism, expertise, and caring that each other brings to our districts and we will continue to give our all for the 1.1 million students of Washington state.

~~~~~
Formed in 1922, WSSDA has grown to include 1,477 locally elected school board directors from across Washington. As a state agency, per chapter 28A.345 RCW, WSSDA supports its members with research-based leadership development resources, policy and legal guidance, and legislative advocacy. This work is of critical importance because school board directors build the future of public education by setting the policy, governance, and budgetary priorities for all of Washington's 295 school districts.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Paine Field expansion impacts Shoreline and North King County

Monday, August 13, 2018

Antonov AN-225 on the taxiway, copyright, Marc Weinberg


Text and photos by Marc Weinberg

During the 1970’s and 80’s I was an active pilot often flying in and out of Paine Field, Everett. During that time there was an effort by Snohomish County to enlarge the facilities and incorporate commercial aviation at the field. As you can imagine there were many homeowners and local businesses who were concerned about this potential development.

There was a community effort to reach an agreement. I served as Chairman of the Paine Field Mediation Team, and the Steering Committee, as well as the Community Council consisting of more than a dozen users of the field from flight service companies to Boeing.

Over several years we hammered out a plan, approved by the Snohomish County Planning Commission that confirmed that the airport would remain a ‘general aviation’ facility and not serve “commercial flights”. This gave the green light to the thousands of homes and businesses that have been developed along the Mukilteo Speedway.

If you’ve been keeping up with media reports you know that this agreement declared 35 plus years ago has been overturned and passenger flights were expected to begin in the fall of 2018. This has been delayed by the FAA because Alaska Airline, Southwest and United will bring more passengers than originally approved in the 2012 environmental impact assessment.

Paine Field Boeing Facility at night, copyright, Marc Weinberg

The FAA has required a new review because of increased operation by more airlines and a different fleet mix, which in fact would double those previously anticipated.

The three airlines mentioned plan to have 24 flights per day or 48 take-offs and landings accounting for about 1,000 passengers. If service demand increases Alaska could bring in their 737 fleet which seats up to 189 passengers, but even without the Alaska expansion, operations could account for over 2,000 passengers per day.

Residents north of the Everett area appear to be looking forward to having an alternative to driving to SeaTac, but many residents and merchants are greatly concerned about an increase of traffic, road congestion and overflight noise. Mukilteo brought a law suit the Washington State Supreme Court refused to hear.

If you are concerned about the noise of overflights in your area, be alert for another opportunity to voice your opinion in the coming months as the FAA is required to provide a 30 day public comment period.

There are several ‘real time flight tracking Apps’ that are easy to use. For example: ‘flight tracker and flight aware’. Each can provide information about the airline, altitude, speed, etc. which is a handy detailed description that you can use to call the ‘noise complaint” hot line at 425-388-5125 option 4. In addition, of course, you can track your flight information when traveling. 

The Antonov An-225 Mriya is a strategic airlift cargo aircraft
built in the Ukraine in the 1980s, copyright, Marc Weinberg

The longest main runway is virtually North/South which puts both departing and landing flights (depending on the wind) in our direction. There are noise abatement procedures if the airport and the pilot choose to follow them.

Currently the airport is classified as a national reliever facility. Could it become an international airport and what would that mean in addition to the current direction of commercial flights? I’m sure the residents near SeaTac Airport would have an answer.

Yes there are some travel benefits, but at the expense of our largely residential community. We all know that growth and change are inevitable, but how it occurs is up to each of us to determine.

Get involved as many of us did nearly 40 years ago because as you can see nothing is forever and commitments can be broken.



Read more...

Times editorial writer takes exception to Chase Op-Ed

Thursday, August 9, 2018

Seattle Times editorial writer Melissa Santos, in an opinion piece published Thursday, August 9, 2018 "Lawmakers are still telling lies about the Public Records Act bill — don’t fall for it," took exception to the points raised by Sen. Maralyn Chase in her op-ed published in the Shoreline Area News on August 1..

In her op-ed "Let's talk about public disclosure" Sen. Chase explained her rationale for her support of the legislation which was passed by the legislature and then vetoed by Gov. Inslee which would have exempted some of legislators' records from public disclosure.

The Seattle Times and the Everett Herald declined to endorse Sen. Chase, based in part on her continued support of this legislation.

Santos said, in part, "Voters shouldn't be fooled by state lawmakers repeating debunked talking points about their recent attempt to squirm out of following the state's Public Records Act."

"In her Aug. 1 piece, Chase repeats some of the same falsehoods many legislators cited in February to defend their vote for Senate Bill 6617. 
"That was the bill lawmakers passed to permanently seal off access to their past emails, calendars, disciplinary reports and other working documents — only a month after a trial court ruled the Legislature had been illegally withholding those records from the public."

She concludes,
"Citizens should not allow themselves to be schooled by lawmakers who either don’t understand how the Public Records Act works or are willfully misrepresenting it on the campaign trail. 
"Lawmakers should take the time to read up on their own court case before lecturing the media — and the public — about what the judge’s ruling and the law actually say."


Melissa Santos' Times' article: Lawmakers are still telling lies



Read more...

Op-Ed: Sen. Chase made a few false and misleading statements

Monday, August 6, 2018

Keith Smith
Keith Smith is a Centrist Party candidate seeking election to the Washington House of Representatives to represent Legislative District 32.

By Keith Smith

Senator Maralyn Chase (D-Shoreline) penned an op-ed about the public records debacle earlier this week, and it in she made a few false and misleading statements which need to be corrected.

While reciting the history of the Public Records Act (PRA), Sen. Chase stated that it was designed to allow the public access to records from certain agencies. Agencies like the Departments of Licensing and Transportation, and that the Legislature followed different rules. That implies that the Legislature ought to be held to a different standard than other departments.

Unfortunately, the PRA specifically defines an “agency” as any state office. Since Senator and Representative are state offices, it would serve to reason that they are all subject to the PRA. Additionally, all local governments are fully subject to the PRA, including city and county councils, which are legislative branches of local government. If the PRA was not supposed to apply to legislative bodies why are those entities not exempted? 

Lastly, her argument basically takes this form, “We’ve always done this, so we should be able to continue to do it.” As a society we would not accept that argument from anyone in court. In fact, next time you get a traffic ticket try telling the judge that you have always sped down a specific road. See how far that argument gets you. Breaking the law in the past is not a defense to breaking the law in the present.

Sen. Chase then moves on to say that the Court ordered the legislature to pass a new PRA, “…Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese ordered the State Legislature to pass comprehensive legislation on public disclosure…”. This statement is completely false. 

Judge Lanese’s order is available online, and nowhere in it does he state that the legislature has to pass any law. He wrote that the legislature must follow the law as written. It would be completely improper for a court to issue a ruling that the legislature must pass any law. It would violate the separation of powers, and Judge Lanese actually says that in his ruling. 

Even in the McCleary case, the Supreme Court was careful to say that they were not ordering lawmakers to pass any new laws. Just that the laws they had already passed, and the State’s Constitution, required them to fund education. The Court left the rest up to them. Judge Lanese did not order the legislature to pass a new PRA, they chose to do that on their own.

Next, Sen. Chase writes that the legislature created the new PRA with advice from the Attorney-General’s office. While that is possible, it completely mischaracterizes the AG’s involvement in the case. First, the legislature hired outside counsel, at tax-payer expense, to defend them in this lawsuit. 

The AG’s office actually filed a brief with the court arguing that the legislature was wrong in the way that they interpreted the PRA. Also, it would be malpractice for the AG to give advice to the legislature about a court order without reading it first. Meaning that if the AG’s office did help with the new bill, it almost certainly would have told the legislature that the court did not order them to craft it. Lastly, Sen. Chase admits that the bill was not written by the AG, but by the legislature’s outside counsel.

She goes on to say that the bill would increase transparency. Unfortunately, the pesky definitions from the PRA undercut this claim too. From the PRA, “’Public record’ includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” 

So, when the Senator says that the public would have access to correspondence with lobbyists and legislative calendars for the first time, I can only assume that she means the legislature is going to be releasing documents that the public already had a right to for the first time. She also undermines her own argument in the next paragraph by stating that under the existing PRA the legislature had to release unredacted constituent correspondence upon request.

If I am following the argument correctly: when a member of the public sends an email to their representative, all that person’s personal data is released, but if a request is made for correspondence between a lawmaker and a lobbyist, that is off limits and will be shielded. 

Not only is that fearmongering at its worst, it is also not true. The current PRA allows for information that is “not of legitimate concern to the public” to be shielded from disclosure. Some examples would include a person’s name, address, phone number, SSN, and health information. All of which are examples the Senator gives for things that she would have no choice but to disclose if asked.

The Senator also states in her op-ed that the new PRA “codifi[es the] Legislature’s current interpretation of the Public Disclosure Act”. Meaning that a judge told the legislature that they were misinterpreting the PRA, so they just changed the law to make their interpretation correct. They also made sure the law only applied to records created after July of this year. Meaning the public had no access to any previous records.

In 2018 this seems to be the norm, a politician does something that the public does not like, and they just give “alternative facts” to make it seem like they were right all along. I am used to seeing this at the national level, but I expect more from our local leaders.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Let's talk about public disclosure

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

State Senator Maralyn Chase, D-32
By State Senator Maralyn Chase

There has been a lot of discussion about public disclosure and government transparency in the local media this year. The state legislature attempted to pass a bill to address this.

It’s an important and complex topic that I care about a great deal. In fact, I serve on the State Sunshine Committee that is committed to this very issue. Let me share some background on public disclosure with you and about how I support greater transparency in government, but also protections for private citizens.

The Public Disclosure Act (later renamed the Public Records Art) was created in 1972, as a result of the voter-approved Initiative 276, with the purpose of increasing transparency into the work of Washington government agencies and campaign financing. This law meant that certain records by certain public agencies, such as Department of Licensing and Department of Transportation, were subject to public records requests and review by anyone who asked for them.

The Legislature therefore continued to use its own rules defining what documents were public. The judicial branch also continued to use its own rules. Many exemptions were added to the law over the years.

Fast forward to 2018.

Near the beginning of the 2018 legislative session, January 19th, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese ordered the State Legislature to pass comprehensive legislation on public disclosure, ruling that legislators’ offices are "agencies" (the term used in the original law) and are therefore subject to all aspects of the Public Disclosure Act. This was in response to a lawsuit initiated by various media organizations statewide.

With advice from State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the Legislature responded to the judge's order. In February, legislative attorneys filed an appeal and wrote a bipartisan bill, S.B. 6617, to clarify how legislative records should be treated.

Along with 40 of my 48 colleagues in the State Senate, and 83 of the 98 members of the House, I voted for the bill, believing it was a step in the right direction of expanding transparency without risking the privacy of constituents. Feeling pressure to meet the deadline for adjournment and to avoid a special session, the legislature did not schedule sufficient time for public input on the bill. That was a mistake. Consequently, there was vigorous pushback to the bill by the public and news media urging Governor Inslee to veto S.B. 6617, which he did.

Unfortunately, some mischaracterized the bill, claiming that it created more secrecy around legislative records. In fact, it would have created greater transparency by amending the inadequate existing law to require for the first time:
  • the disclosure of legislative calendars 
  • correspondence with lobbyists
  • final reports on misconduct investigations 
  • internal accounting and financial records, including personnel leave, travel, and payroll records of legislators and staff 
  • codification of the Legislature’s current interpretation of the Public Disclosure Act
  • creation of a new public records office and funding for staff

The bill would have continued to protect certain categories of documents such as constituent correspondence and location of meetings on our calendars. And it would have only applied to records starting from July 1, 2018.

Some believed the bill did not go far enough. That is worth considering and I am committed to addressing these concerns with greater clarity as we head into the next session.

Legislators receive correspondence from the public who are seeking help about private issues such as health, domestic violence, and legal matters. Many of us, myself included, were very concerned about making such information available to the media or anyone else who makes a public records request. For example, I do not want to release records of people who contacted my office about the price of prescription drugs to a marketing firm. It is especially critical to protect victims and whistleblowers. Our intention was to pass a bill to both expand the amount of information available to the public, while also protecting personal information such as phone numbers, health information, and Social Security numbers of our constituents.

I am committed to government transparency and the need for public media to access vital information to support democratic and transparent processes. We also need to make government transparency compatible with constituent privacy.

Looking ahead to 2019.

I fully support the latest effort by the legislature to create a 15-Member Legislative Task Force on Public Records, which will examine "establishing standards for maintaining and disclosing public records for the legislative branch of government." The Committee will appoint House and Senate members as well as members representing Washington-based media sources, an open-government source, and members representing the public. It will meet from September to December of 2018. We need to do this right and get it done, in partnership with the public, during the 2019 session. Please visit my website for details about the task force: maralynchase.com

Updated by author 8-3-2018

Read more...

Op-Ed: Shoreline City Council should represent the citizens, not developers

Monday, July 30, 2018

Cedar, Madrone, Fir, Hemlock, Spruce, Big-Leaf Maple, Birch
Will we care when they are gone?


Cynthia Knox is an artist, a neighborhood leader, and the creator and organizer of the SummerSet Arts Festival which ran for five years at Ronald Bog.

By Cynthia Knox

This Monday, at July 30th's Shoreline Council Meeting there is an agenda item regarding tree retention policy for developers in the MUR70 zones. As a resident of this city and one of your constituents, I request that Shoreline City Council Members represent me, a Shoreline citizen, and my future and my descendent's futures over developer's wishes/demands.

Trees are being cut down at a rapid rate all over Shoreline and the current replacement policies/fines are insufficient to keep this city a "Tree City" and retain our valuable tree canopy.

Do not be fooled by the statistic quoted by city staff regarding what seems like a small impact on the tree canopy with the current amendment. This amendment is a portent of more amendments like this to come.

Every amendment that allows loopholes for trees to be decimated is a downhill slide to making our city look and feel more like other urban centers. Do you notice how much cooler it is up here in Shoreline than Seattle? To keep it that way we must keep the trees.

City Council Members, I ask you to consider the following when representing RESIDENTS of Shoreline.

1. That building density with lack of trees (if builders get to buy their way out of saving trees), will lead to creating HEAT ISLANDS in our city. (Please note that the Aurora Corridor is already one) .

2. The Planning Commission is populated with people in professions that are tangential to, and profit from developers - they are not neutral in their viewpoints.

3. Shoreline does not have to bend over backwards to entice developers to do business here. We are the next city up from Seattle. If Seattle area is expanding, the expansion is definitely coming up here. Now is the time to set the standards for how we want this city to be for the near and far future. Do we want to be "green" in name only? OR in practice as well?

4. Would the fees paid for each tree (for fee-in-lieu) be commensurate with what a tree is really worth? My guess is that the price is too low if a developer doesn't think twice about paying the fee. I ask that Council Members and City Staff do more research into how much a 25/50/100 year old tree is worth when it comes to the value it provides to humans and animals - not how much one can purchase one for at a nursery. Clean air is priceless for people like myself who have asthma. FYI, the numbers of people in the USA suffering from asthma are going up rapidly each year!

5. As a way of mitigating the problem of heat islands and lack of air purification from lack of trees/plants, I request that ordinances/laws be put in effect to make developers, and then the building owners plant AND maintain greenery on the sides (actual walls) and tops of the large buildings. This will require new requirements for architectural plans, and large fines for building owners who do not comply . Now is our chance to keep Shoreline green. If we do not stand up for this now, we cannot get it back.

6. The notion of "affordable" housing in Shoreline is a joke. Many college graduates are making $15 an hour which makes paying even a $750/month rent a stretch. Please look around and see what $750 buys in rent in Shoreline? To pay a higher rent means they then start having to choose between paying their student loans OR rent. There is no way either non-educated or educated people can get ahead in this housing market. If developers are selling the Council the idea that they can cut down trees and not plant any TRULY equivalent trees/plants while experiencing no significant consequences as a way of being able to create "affordable housing" next to the Light Link Rail Transit Center, please do your research as to how true that actually is? Perhaps the City can give developers other environmental incentives - like how the rain garden program works for residents?

7. Our air and the health of our underground natural infrastructure (soil, roots, fungi, ground water/streams, etc.) is dependent on how well we preserve and care for our trees and plants. Please do not lose sight of this?!

Shoreline Council and City Staff, thanks for considering. You are our representatives. Please act in our interests.


Read more...

Op-Ed: 32nd Legislative District GOP candidates on President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

From 32nd Legislative District GOP Candidates: 

Senate candidate James Wood and State Representative candidates Diodato Boucsieguez (Position 1) and Frank Deisler (Position 2) release the following joint statement regarding President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court:

“We strongly support the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump. Judge Kavanaugh is unquestionably qualified, is not an activist judge, and will do an extraordinary job of protecting the rights and liberties of the people in The Constitution. 
The United States Senate should not turn judicial confirmations into political elections and partisan sideshows. We hope they will confirm Judge Kavanaugh as quickly as possible.”



Read more...

Op-Ed: Trees make Shoreline liveable

Friday, June 22, 2018

Bothell - trees share space with developments
By Christine Southwick

I attended the June 21st Planning Commission meeting at City Hall. The topic was the “Tree Retention in MUR-70” Development Code Amendment-Public Hearing.

The majority of members on the commission had already made up their minds.

As soon as the public finished speaking, the motion was made and seconded to pass “Option 1” which exempts contractors building in MUR-70’ (read seven story building) from Shoreline’s Tree Code with incentives for Tree Retention and Replacement.

Basically this means that a contracting company doesn’t have to keep any trees (no matter how big, tall, healthy and important to the area) but, if they save as few as 10% of the significant trees then the developer can increase the base height of their building by ten feet!

If 20% of significant trees are kept, then the required parking allotment can be reduced by 25%, and the building can be built within five feet of the front yard setback. Talk about paving paradise and putting in a parking lot (No wait, putting in concrete only — a parking lot would give us somewhere to park)!

And if that wasn’t enough, a sub-motion was added to also include MUR-45’ to be exempt from the Tree Code!!! All in the name of “incentives that would provide greater development potential…”

This sub-motion didn’t get voted on, but it shows the need for public input, and the need for citizens to come to meetings to show we care about our environment. We need to know in a timely manner what is being moved through the system, and if necessary voice our dissent before it becomes law.

We are adjacent to Seattle - developers don’t need “tree give-away incentives”. There is plenty of profit to be made by developers, especially given the ease of access to the development areas (200 acres in Shoreline are zoned as MUR-70’)

Now is the opportunity for Shoreline to create more green spaces and public open spaces instead of less! We need incentives to keep more large trees, especially evergreens which help with our winter storm waters.

Bothell was able to do so (see the picture), without making their citizens wait 20 years for 1.5” diameter deciduous trees to grow into something worth noticing.

Shoreline needs to step up to the challenge of protecting our wooded environment, one of Shoreline’s attributes.

Shoreline’s Parks Department has estimated that it will need nine more acres of parks just to support the projected population increase. To get nine more acres will take some creative thinking.

Where would Seattle be without the Olmstead Parks? (37 parks that include Seward, Volunteer, Woodland Park and Arboretum, plus Magnolia and Ravenna Boulevards)

Next steps:

1) Write to the City council. Tell them that trees make Shoreline livable!

2) Read City of Shoreline info - be an informed citizen and voter. Make a difference. This is where you live, and probably where your children will grow up.

3) Show up at meetings so that the City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks/Tree Board, know that you care, and are watching. These members live here too, and need to know that when developers pressure them, that the citizens of Shoreline will stand by healthy environmental decisions, for the livability of Shoreline.



Read more...

Op-Ed: A response to former LFP Council Members concerned about communications

Friday, June 8, 2018

Councilmember
Phillippa Kassover
Phillippa Kassover is a current Council Member for the City of Lake Forest Park

By Phillippa M. Kassover

In response to the three former council members, who served Lake Forest Park with dedication during their terms (1974-79, 1990-97, and 2006-13), and recently wrote a letter (LFP council vs the citizens of LFP) expressing their disappointment in what they perceive as a reduction in communication between the LFP city council and the public, I hear your frustration.

As a brand new council member, I expressed concern about the dissolution of the citizen commissions recommended by the Mayor, as those who sat in on our meetings in early 2016 may remember.

I then chaired the LFP Council Communications Committee, where I learned that our staffing in City Hall has never recovered from the 2008 recession, when the position dedicated to community relations was cut. I also learned how difficult it is for elected officials to engage on social media due to the stringent public records act in Washington State, which is so tough that the state legislators who created the act refuse to be fully covered by it! 

However, the Communications Committee and the city council insisted that robust public engagement be a vital part of the planning for the important parks, culverts, roads, town center and transportation (Big Five) projects in our city.

Since October of 2017, we have held at least eleven open houses and workshops (as well as on-line forums) on these topics, attended by hundreds of residents and members of council. Once we begin to wind down these focused open houses, I look forward to requesting more general town halls that allow the council and public to engage in the two-way conversations our business meetings do not allow. I will also revive my request for re-instituting citizens’ commissions.

I am pleased that the council approved my recent motion to increase the number of members on the new Parks Board from 5 to 7, including a high-school student. I proposed this change because I believe that community input – including from our younger residents, is vitally important to good governance.

When I ran for office in 2015, I visited 2,000 homes in LFP, and engaged in conversations with hundreds of people, many of whom stay in touch with me. I learned much from these conversations that continues to inform my votes and my work on the LFP city council. 

I ran on a platform dedicated to preserving our unique and threatened natural ecosystem, and keeping LFP a vibrant and healthy city for us and for future generations. These goals were supported by the 61% of our citizens who voted for me in my race against a worthy and credible opponent. They are the goals that inspire my work to understand and vote on the difficult issues before us in this time of stunning growth and unprecedented strain on our public infrastructure and economic and natural resources.

I remain committed to these goals, looking for every available strategy to preserve our natural environment and keep LFP a thriving community. I prepare for each meeting thoroughly and vote my conscience.

I have never participated in any parliamentary tricks or maneuvers to undermine the democratic process. It takes 4 votes to pass an ordinance in Lake Forest Park and in cities across the state, as mandated by state law. 

Consequently, the recent Conservation Cluster Housing ordinance supported by just three council members, including me, should not have been declared as passed and I was surprised that this happened. I had expected to lose the vote, even though I believe the conservation easement and cottage strategy is a good option. I wish I had more clearly understood the procedure and state law during that meeting to challenge the “pass” declaration, because that would have been the right thing to do.

I look forward to continued conversations with the community and my council colleagues about how we move forward and write new regulations or provide incentives to developers and property owners to save our beloved and immensely valuable forested ecosystem. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to leave them a livable and healthy planet.

In the meantime, please know that you can contact me at any time at: pkassover@ci.lake-forest-park.wa.us I am committed to answering all emails addressed directly to me.



Read more...

Op-Ed: Council Vice-Chair urges Mayor to veto LFP Conservation Cluster Housing ordinance

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Tom French
Tom French is Lake Forest Park City Council Vice-Chair and 49-year LFP resident

By Tom French

I am urging Mayor Johnson to veto the recently amended and passed Lake Forest Park Conservation Cluster Housing ordinance.

Despite a clear understanding at a recent Committee of the Whole meeting that the Council supported a path of repealing the Conservation Cluster Housing ordinance, a few council members took advantage of my good will and an unusual situation and passed the amended, but deeply flawed, Conservation Cluster Housing Ordinance.

I would have voted Thursday night to repeal the Conservation Cluster Housing ordinance.

Mayor Johnson was absent from the meeting and attending an FBI training session and Deputy Mayor Stanford was seriously ill and needed to rest. As a result, as Vice-Chair of the Council, the duty fell upon me to act in their stead and chair the Council meeting. By rule, I am not allowed to comment during discussion, nor am I allowed to vote in the proceedings, as the Mayor himself is constrained from doing.

I can assure you, I had a lot to say, but out of deep respect for the institution and its rules, I kept silent.

The Conservation Cluster Housing ordinance is supposed to do two things:

Firstly and foremost, (and the most important aspect) it is supposed to protect the environment; and

Secondly, it adds an additional housing option to the mix for those seeking to join our community or for others looking to downsize from an existing home in our city.

I am afraid that that I am not convinced that either would be accomplished under the present, amended ordinance.

While the CCH idea potentially has merit in the broader picture of housing in Lake Forest Park, the public process has been poorly managed and the amended ordinance itself is fraught with unknowns and unintended consequences. City Planning staff themselves have struggled to provide clear, cohesive examples of the various scenarios that could play out under the ordinance.

I stated publicly at the outset of the CCH discussion in early 2017 that I was deeply concerned about the CCH discussion happening under the umbrella of the Critical Areas Ordinance update and that there was the potential “for unintended consequences.”

Well, here we are, yet again.

The citizens of Lake Forest Park deserve better.

I urge Mayor Johnson to exercise his veto powers and encourage my colleagues to have a real conversation about the Conservation Cluster Housing ordinance with all Council Members present.

I look forward to an open and civil discussion about the community’s housing needs with my colleagues and the community.



Read more...

Op-Ed: Active shooter events - our world today

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Chief Steve Sutton
Lake Forest Park Police
By Chief C. Stephen Sutton
Lake Forest Park Police Department

In light of the Parkland/Stoneman Douglas High School shooting a few weeks ago and the Great Mills High School shooting yesterday in St. Mary's County, there has been an increase in questions about police agencies and active shooter responses.

What does that mean for Lake Forest Park?

First, our citizens should understand that our department follows, practices and trains to current protocols and training for Active Shooters and responses using the ALERRT national standard. This standard has been adopted by the FBI and many agencies across the country, including the King County Sheriff’s Office. Our training is on-going and relevant.

Second, LFPPD trains every year and addresses Active Shooter Events and Responses (ASER) as part of our on-going yearly training. In November 2017, we jointly hosted at the LFP Town Center one of the largest ASER training events in the region to focus on threat response in a commercial environment as well as focusing on Rescue Task Forces (RTF) and Warm Zone extractions with our Fire/Rescue partners. Embedded in that was supervisor and command staff training, to train supervisors in using the Incident Command System (ICS) in conjunction with this type of event.

Third, LFPPD takes all threats seriously and if presented with active intelligence about a threat or threatening person or group, will utilize available assets and resources to investigate and act upon the threat(s). As a department, we work closely with our partners at Shoreline PD as well as risk management staff at the Shoreline School District.

Fourth, LFPPD leads the way in regard to ASER training. We began our training in the last decade and have continued since then. We recognize the need and with the support of the City Council as well as the Shoreline School District and local businesses, we regularly train to potential threats. We frequently train with our elementary schools on lockdown and active shooter drills. We train our citizens on Civilian Response to Active Shooter Events (CRASE). Finally, we train with our fire and rescue personnel for RTFs and Warm Zone extractions and were one of the first agencies to adopt this and work with those concepts.

The Lake Forest Park Police Department leads the way in regard to Active Shooter Events and Responses. As an agency that values and encourages continuous training, we embrace what we have learned but continue to train to meet the changing threats and responses at all levels of the department. That training translates to real value to our citizens and region and they can be proud of what our state accredited agency has and will continue to do with ASERs and other active threats. Please remain vigilant at home, at work, and where you travel.



Read more...

Op-Ed: Response to Violence

Wednesday, February 28, 2018


By Steven H. Robinson

With the continuing violence in schools/colleges, communities and against police officers across our nation I reflect on my 38-year career in University/college law enforcement, and some possible responses to the continuing problem our society faces with increasing regularity.

As an armed university police officer for30 years starting as a patrol officer and finishing as an administrator, to an additional 8 years as unarmed college security as an administrator. From the first day I was taught to respond to incidents of violence on campuses (fights, knives, guns, explosives and vehicle assaults). At the start of my career in 1972 it was just responding to the aftermath of the violence.

Multi-phased approach
Through the multi-phased training, planning, prevention, intervention and response, as described below, we can create safer homes, communities and institutions. No one response will work alone. We, as citizens, interested in our own safety needs to be aware of our responsibility and become informed on how to create a safer place to live and thrive.

Responsible Gun Ownership
Responsible gun ownership is an ideal every gun owner should take seriously. Even the National Rifle Association supports this idea. Legislators have attempted to enable reasonable laws concerning the proper storage of firearms. Every sporting goods store including COSTCO, Big Five, Fred Meyer have gun locks and secure storage items on sale. In the past local law enforcement have provided gun locks for free. Firearm owners must take measures to prevent their weapon from being accessed by the curious, untrained or criminal element. We continue to see heart breaking stories of children shooting each other, accidental shootings and firearms entering the black market for use by individuals who are banned from possessing firearms.

Use/Enforce existing gun regulations
Major firearms regulations were enacted at the federal level in 1934 and 1968 with minor revisions along the way. Individual states, and other jurisdictions have enacted more restrictions to gun ownership. For Washington State laws you may refer to the Revised Code of Washington Title 9.41 which lays out ownership requirements and restrictions related to purchasing and owning a firearm as well as definitions of dangerous weapons. We continue to see a lack of reporting and maintaining the federal database of individuals with a criminal record or mental history that precludes them from legally obtaining or being in possession of a firearm. This lack of an up-to-date and accurate database needs to change.

Red Flag Laws
You may have heard of the red flag legislation that allows for the impoundment / seizure of firearms from individuals who have shown they may be violent to their self or others. Family, friends or associates may file to have a judge has deemed the danger exists as our state has enacted. We hear that there is no funding available to implement these programs. This needs to change. The safety of everyone is involved. Because every part of our country has different norms and expectations we should not be deterred if a national law is not enacted. We may need to come together locally to support rational and sensible weapons laws.

Behavior Intervention
Campus officials, under recommendations from the Department of Education, were encouraged and then mandated to develop a coordinated approach to identify individuals with behavioral characteristics who may pose a threat to the learning community. Trained campus staff from law enforcement, counseling, residential life, human resources developed a review model to evaluate possible behavior of campus individuals and regular visitors that might turn violent. Members of the campus community (law enforcement, residential life, instructors, student life, human resources, etc.) were provided with a way to confidentially report their concerns to the intervention team. Intervention techniques were then discussed in addressing the possible threat, and appropriate action was taken where it was deemed prudent. This action was taken to help the individual cope with any issues and hopeful assist them through completion of their academic career.

Even today there are programs such as “RADAR” being adopted by local law enforcement agencies like the Shoreline Police Department to address potentially violent individuals and mitigate the possibility of violent acts being completed.

Unfortunately, these successful programs are not common across our society or nation

Training on proper response to shootings and acts of terror
There has been much research into workplace and educational institution shootings. I was involved in a national review coordinated by the Secret Service reviewing these incidents prior to the Columbine Shooting in Colorado. Other federal agencies have done reviews and made suggestions to improve the higher education and local school community response and mitigation plans related to threat assessment and behavior intervention to address this issue.

Law enforcement officers and emergency planners at university and colleges were informed/trained in the Department of Homeland Security program of “Run, Hide, Fight” to respond to a violent situation. Many schools and colleges provide this training as well as some businesses. Everyone should be informed/trained in these techniques to be able to be safer in our violent society. Your local police or an internet search should be able to provide the basic ideas of “Run, Hide, Fight.”


Read more...
ShorelineAreaNews.com
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the Follow.it email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP