Before we get started on debunking this myth -- what is the definition of gossip?
n.
Local, petty talk
babble, chatter, meddling, small talk, malicious talk, whispering gallery, hearsay, rumor, scandal, news, slander, calumny, defamation, injury, blackening, grapevine*, grapevine telegraph*.
One who indulges in petty talk
snoop, meddler, tattler, newsmonger, gossipmonger, scandalmonger, scandal-bearer, backbiter, magpie, chatterbox, talkative person, babbler, bigmouth, blatherskite, parrot*, long-nose*, sticky-beak*, blabbermouth*, telltale*, old hen*, fuss-budget*, Mrs. Grundy*, gabbler*.
gossip
v.
tattle, prattle, tell tales, talk idly, chat, chatter, rumor, report, tell secrets, blab, babble, repeat, prate, spread a story all over town, dish the dirt*. http://www.yourdictionary.com/gossip
How does malicious talk influence people's perceptions of elected officials? Please see Greg Kirsch's post titled "Draft McShane" on NW Citizen. http://www.nwcitizen.us/entry/draft-mcshane1
Now, here's the real skinny on Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney Dave McEachran's 2008 raise.
It all started with a bill in Olympia...
SSB 6297 (C 309 L 08) as enacted.
Brief Description: Changing elected prosecuting attorney salaries.
Sponsors: Senate Ways and Means (originally sponsored by Senators Prentice, Brandland and Sheldon).
Background:
Article 11, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution specifies that the Legislature must regulate the compensation of elected county officials, including the elected prosecuting attorneys.
The same section allows the Legislature to delegate to county legislative authorities the authority to set the salaries of its own members and other county officers. Since 1971, the Legislature has delegated this responsibility to the county in statute.
Additionally, the same statute also requires the state to pay one-half of the salaries of each elected prosecuting attorney. The Office of the State Treasurer currently remits to state's share to the counties.
In 2008, the salary for the elected county prosecuting attorneys ranged from a maximum of $155,694 in King County to a minimum of $52,588 in Garfield County; the average being $106,764.
Under RCW 2.08.092, the annual salary of a superior court judge is set by the Washington Citizen's Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials. For 2008, the superior court judges salary has been set at$140,979.
Summary:
The Legislature finds that the elected county prosecuting attorney functions as both a state officer pursuing criminal cases on behalf of the state and as a county officer acting as counsel for the county, school districts, and lesser taxing districts as provided in statute.
The responsiblities and decisions of the elected prosecuting attorney are the same in every county of Washington, and the same skills and expertise need to be exercised in the least populated county as it is in the most populated county. The Legislature further finds that the salary of the elected prosecuting attorney should be tied to that of the Superior Court judge.
Effective July 1, 2008, the state must contribute an amount equal to one-half of the salary of a Superior Court Judge towards the salary for the county's elected prosecuting attorney. Upon receipt of the state's contribution, each county must continue to contribute an amount equal to or greater than the amount it contributed in 2008 towards the elected county prosecutor's salary. The requirement that the state pay half of the salary of the elected prosecuting attorney is removed.
Available Background Documents
Bill Documents
Bill Digests
Bill Reports
Original Bill
Substitute Bill (WM 08)
Bill as Passed Legislature
Session Law
Bill Digest
Substitute Bill Digest
House Bill Analysis
Senate Bill Report
Substitute Senate Bill Report
Substitute House Bill Report
Final Bill Report
Now now, that's really unfair using all them facts and logic and links n' stuff.
ReplyDeleteI want entertainment, which is why I go to NWCitizn and see what their "writers" made up.
They are not hampered by reality or making sense.
See ya.
More power to you!
ReplyDeleteEven I love to read fiction!
Well... I attended the County Council meetings where this was all discussed, and I think a breakdown of some kind did occur. The point was not that McE was not entitled to the raise (which came from the state) but that the council very specifically did not want Pete to ride McE's coattails to a pay raise.
ReplyDeleteMcE told Pete about the looming trigger deadline, but did not inform the council. Was that collusion, incompetence, or an insitutionalized behavior that keeps part-time council members out of the loop on most gov't matters most of the time? Who can say; but we might make an educated guess.
It seems pretty clear Pete dragged his heels on a matter where he CLEARLY knew the council's intent and allowed a trigger deadline to pass. Fore sure, he was speedy as hell in getting his new pay raise marched across the hall to HR. When, exactly, was Pete going to tell council what McE had told him? They had to read about it in the paper!
Pete waves around a piece of paper like it's the Smoking Gun document that entitles him to the raise, but it was a canard. Then he doth protest too much until everyone in the room was disgusted by it and so infuriated council they had to move on to other business before they lynched him.
Where it gets stinky as far as McE is concerned is when Legal's Dan Gibson started acting as Pete's counsel. Our tax dollars at work! I think Gibson's advice to council (they couldn't revoke it) was flawed, since there was A GREAT DEAL of legislative intent and discussion before the trigger date that they never intended Pete to have that raise.
As an apology, Mc E owed the taxpayers an investigation into what happened when. Instead, we got the Pete-&-Dave Puppet Show. For that, Dave deserves a spankin'.
I see.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you're telling me that none of the County Council members know or understand that new legislation at the state level goes into effect on July 1st, of each year?
A bill was introduced. It passed the Washington State Legislature and it was signed into law by the Governor.
That bill was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2008.
Whatcom County has law on the books that states the County Executive,(regardless of who is serving as County Executive) is entitled to receive a percentage of the County Prosecutor's salary (regardless of who is serving as County Prosecutor).
The County Council has a number of veteran members.
Now, do you really expect me to believe that none of the County Councilmembers were aware of the fact that July 1st is the day state legislation goes into effect in Washington?
And, that the adoption of legislation at the state level has an effect on local legislation?
Are you aware that you are talking to a grown up?
Me again.
ReplyDeleteI am saying it is conceivable with all that's on their plate, Whatcom County Council may have needed a reminder (the same reminder McE gave Pete) that the deadline was approaching. They had already done much preliminary work to de-link the exec's salary from the prosecutors (as early as December 2007), had discussed it again in the spring, and were waiting for action from the executive and/or Legal. So, yes, they knew about it... along with the 200 other things in motion they also need to watch.
Pete had the information, knew about the deadline. because McE had warned him it was approaching. Slouched it over to coucil a week after the deadline had passed. But, boy, he sure wasted no time running it over to HR to give him the salary boost.
Pretty greasy.
Mostly, McEachran ends up looking like a dope for trusting Pete to properly convey his warning about a looming deadline to the council. But, also, because McE also knew council was interested in making this change, he looks incompetent as well.
You've got to be kidding me!
ReplyDeleteDo you think the Governor of the State of Washington sends reminder e-mails to the Washington State Legislature regarding impending deadlines?
What do you think government is? Kindergarten?
If the council members need that much hand holding - it's time to resign!
This is a childish argument constructed to smear the County Executive.
Grow up!
Gotta agree with Elisabeth here for sure! The members of the County Council are the ones responsible for the laws on the books...not the Exec. There is a reason they are separate branches of government. The Council was aware and did nothing. I can't believe everyone bought into the "I didn't know" and "hoodwinked" scenarios. Well...shame on you County Council....you are elected to KNOW and handle these situations! It is well known these positions are full time work for part time pay. If it is too much...don't run for that office!
ReplyDeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteThe Washington State Legislature is also a part time position.
Elected officials have a responsibility to stay on top of deadlines and schedules.
It's not the Executive's job to keep them on track.
FYI: we have three separate branches of government. The three branches each have a list of responsibilites and obligations to the people they serve.
I agree with Elisabeth. I also agree with Anonymous. The executive branch (Kremen / Desler) should not be required to remind the legislative branch (Council) to take action. However, the legislative branch should be able to rely on the county attorney to track items that he is (or should be) advising them on.
ReplyDeleteThe county does not have a separate attorney to advise Council so the county attorney must wear two hats. If there was a separate attorney for Council, then that attorney would rightfully be blamed for falling asleep at the wheel.
Council does have a policy analyst / advisor who should have also been tracking this issue.
It's unfair to lay the blame completely on Council members. Either their policy analyst or the county attorney should have been on top of this since Council had already expressed their concern about it.
It would be nice if Council members each tracked every issue; but it's not possible. They are either understaffed or their staff did not properly track this issue for them.
Just my opinion.
Anonymous too.
ReplyDeleteMistakes were made.
But the fact that mistakes were made does not mean that the County Executive or the County Prosecutor should bear the burden of the blame.
Nor should local media be making hay over it.
Council members have a responsibility to stay on top of their schedule.
If it's not possible to stay on track, then slow down!
As you well know, everyone is understaffed.
Agreed. The primary issue here is Council's failure to either track this issue themselves or to delegate that responsibility to their analyst or attorney. It's actually a common theme with the County and City Councils. Each member assumes the work will magically get done, but there's no system in place to ensure that it does.
ReplyDeleteUltimately it is Council's responsibility, as you say; however, it is very common for the city and county attorney to adequately represent the executive branch (County Exec and Mayor), but not the legislative (Council). In some cases (perhaps including this one), it's almost impossible for a single attorney to represent both without a conflict of interest.
Both Councils would be wise to establish a system to ensure that each issue is tracked effectively. At the city level at least, I know this is NOT being done.
Annon too....if you mean outside legal counsel, then no, the Council doesn't have one on retainer. They do, however, have a prosecuting attorney assigned to them that is not McE and is separate from the prosecuting attorney assigned to the Exec. If you think that person is afraid of losing their job from McE, then you've definitely not worked in government. It is nearly impossible to be fired...and if they were, exactly what reason could be used?
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line here is the Council evidently discussed prior to July 1 that they wanted to remove the percentage tie to the Pros Atty salary. So, knowing that legislative items take effect July 1, why did the Council not have someone write an ordinance? They have the staff to do it...in fact they have an attorney assigned to them that could have done it....heck....I can write an ordinance! They didn't need any other item to change the law on the books other than an ordinance pertianing strictly to that percentage.
Bottom line...they dropped the ball and then acted like 4 year olds pointing fingers....Not me! It was him!!!
Please spare me.
Anon, I think we’re all in agreement that Council dropped the ball. My concern is that they implement a system that prevents them from doing so in the future. Is it possible they did ask “their” attorney to work on an ordinance, but didn’t have a system that ensured follow through? I don’t know. Any time they defer action, they need to make sure it’s tracked. How is that being done now, and who is responsible?
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure where your comment about someone losing their job or getting fired is coming from. When I stated that an attorney who represents both the County Exec and Council on a single issue where their interests may conflict cannot represent both sides fairly. Even two separate attorneys under the direction of a single person may experience a conflict of interest. That’s why law firms do not represent both sides of an issue, even if different lawyers represent each side. If two county attorneys report to McE, a conflict of interest can easily arise if one represents the County Exec and one represents Council. This situation has occurred numerous times in Bellingham and remains unresolved.
Interesting discussion
ReplyDeleteDo all of the County's attorneys report to the Prosecuting Attorney?
Or, is there a "separation" between the legislative, executive and judicial branches like we find at the state and national level?
I don't pretend to know the answer - I worked for the the state legislature, where the caucuses and committees had their own attorneys (who were all paid by the state of Washington).
If your hypothesis is correct and the confilct is "built in" how do other counties and cities deal with the problem?
Anon Too...sorry I got a little "excited". Previous discussions on this issue have talked about McE or Kremen not "allowing" the attorneys to "state their case" so to speak. Should not have included that in our discussion. It's just one of those things that gets to me. :)
ReplyDeleteElisabeth, all of the attys in the prosecutor's office do report to the prosecutor so I guess there can be a presumed conflict. From personal experience, I can say that the one that represents the Exec gives his opinions based on law and precedent and never what he thinks people want to hear. I have the utmost respect for him. I've not dealt with the other attorney on enough of a regular basis to state the same claim however. Not saying she is not the same, just that I don't know it from personal experience. There was at one time two working with the Council, with one to take over the position full time, but I'm not sure if that took place and he is actually their counsel right now.
On the issue of following up to ensure tasks are complete in a timely manner, I believe that falls to the Clerk or her Asst. Clerk. When I worked with the County that is who I dealt with on a regular basis for timing of items and submittal for placing items on the agenda. In this instance when I use the term "Clerk", this is by no means an entry level position. This person runs the Council office and is in a managerial role. So, if a Councilmember requested an ordinance be drafted and that Councilmember shared that information with their staff, I would presume that would be followed up by her. Don't know if that directive was ever given by a Councilmember though.
Here is my perspective of the Council...I believe they each care about their jobs, however, they are very focused on individual agendas and have so many open items there is no way possible anything can get done in our lifetime (and I'm only in my 40's). It's great to have "dreams", but at some point the Council needs to pretty much toss everything out, list the mandates, list the dollars remaining following funding those mandates and then complete a hit list of the most important things with a real process to get them done and then actually do them. In my opinion, I don't see that happening. Everyone means well I'm sure, but I think sometimes they forget they have other things to do and those are the items they breeze through and treat like "housekeeping" items when they are absolutely not. They are their core roles and responsibilities. Anything they can accomplish to better the community on top of that is a plus. Yes, they must look to the future and the consequences of today's actions, but they first need to get today's actions complete, not just a "to do" list.
Me again. The childish Pete slimer. (But actually I like Pete, a lot, and was disappointed in him in this instance; he could have done much better).
ReplyDeleteYes, Elisabeth, all county attys--even public defenders--report to the Prosecutor. And therein lies some of the problem, in terms of separation of powers.
Dan Gibson steps up and starts defending the County Exec's pay raise to County Council? Outrageous. He works for the taxpayer. Pete can hire his ow attys.
The council, my dear friend Elisabeth, is different from the Legislature in that they do not have large amounts of staff directly under their control and are somewhat dependent on the Executive for assistance. He failed them; he failed us. To his personal financial benefit.
We can blame County Council, sure. But their eye was blacked. Their intention was to do right, and--sure--they failed. Their eye was on this issue, and their eye wavered. Pete is the only one who gained from this gaming of the system. Everyone else was harmed. How was council aided by this? How was McE? Pete certainly enriched through the failure.
No slime intended, except as it was invited. And this from someone who likes and supports Pete. Don't mischaracterize me. I like Pete... and now through some slipperiness he has a wonderfully enriched pension.
How wonderful for him.
Actually, now that I think about it, there may be some separation of the attorneys. I'm trying to remember who did performance reviews on them. I don't think the attorney that represents the Exec reports to the Exec. There may be some type of dual reporting relationship, but now that I'm questioning myself I can't say for sure. I'll find that out and let you know.
ReplyDeleteI think you're on to a problem here. As I understand it the council attorney is in the prosecuting attorney's office and assists the county council. They do have policy staff, but for the important land use issues, and it's not her job to track the hundreds of details. Unless council members track, things fall off their plates. Only a few do track closely...
ReplyDeleteDear Anon 3 and Childish Pete Slimer,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input!
Actually, the members of legislature don't really have anyone working under their direct control either. That's why I found this discussion interesting.
Granted, there are assigned department heads that the caucus staff attorneys and committee staff attorneys report to and there is a long tradition that requires staff attorneys to remain "neutral" regardless of the policy viewpoint of the various legislators they assist.
Members of the legislature, like the city and county council are individually responsible for tracking their own bills, opposition bills, drafting legislation with the assistance of the code revisor, etc.
With over 6000 bills being introduced in any given year. No one can keep up with it. In other words, mistakes are made. A hearing takes place and no one was there to testify, etc.
But most state House members have a full time staff person to assist him/her. Senators have two staff members during session.
King County Council members also have individual legislative assistants and other staff to assist them.
Perhaps the problem isn't the attorneys, but the lack of knowledgeable support staff (and a schedule that is by design much too demanding for a part time legislative body to keep up with).
In Olympia, I can remember legislators pushing a button to vote yes or no on a measure without ever having read the bill. The decision about how to vote was made by the caucus or a trusted lobbyst.
I wonder, are break neck schedules part of the problem?
Yes, break neck schedules are part of the problem; but is it intentional?
ReplyDeleteThe reality is: Staff runs government; Councils are nothing more than speed bumps.
Staff promotes bureaucracy and the bureaucratic morass that impedes progress on key issues (unless it's progress in the direction of staff's choosing).
We vote for people who claim they are different; who claim they will not be swallowed up by the bureaucracy and will champion a host of causes the protect and improve the welfare of their constituency.
After elected, they find they are more like parents of devious children (staff) who plot behind their backs to sneak out of the house and party all night. If elected officials realize they cannot accomplish what they set out to do, they should step aside and support someone who can.
To those who seek election for the first time: Please don't make empty promises. If you enjoy bureaucratic inaction, find another rewarding career. On the other hand, if you are the one in a million who can be effective by breaking through the morass, you will earn the respect and admiration of your community.
Anonymous too (BTW - the other handle was brilliant).
ReplyDeleteAre break neck schedules intentional? Sometimes they are - sometimes they're not... in other words, schedules can be manipulated...but you already know that.
An example of when they are not manipulated? When session is about to end. Some cutoffs are mandated by law.
Staff, at any level (local, state or national) is the institutional memory for any legislative body.
Staff wields tremendous control over legislators.
Yes, inexperienced candidates often promise that they will not be swallowed up by the bureaucracy. then, they take office only to discover that they are totally dependent on staff to function.
Is it by design? Probably.
I agree with you - if a candidate is one of the "one in a million individuals" who can effectively cut through the bureaucratic morass, they will earn the respect and admiration of the community.
Good discussion - thanks
Anon Too - all very interesting. This I disagree with "You will earn the respect and admiration of your community." Sadly, there's no daily media coverage of local government these days so people simply have no idea what is or isn't accomplished. That vaccuum makes it easy for the Servais/Kirsch/Pratum machine to wind up and tear down reputations based on lies. (That trio of misogynists makes it harder for women but that's another story.)
ReplyDeleteWhen we had the Bellingham Herald as a functional newspaper, that wasn't able to happen. The citizenry used to be informed.
Anon Three,
ReplyDeleteI hope Sam Taylor is reading your comment; I think he'd disagree that "there's no daily coverage of local government these days."
Sam's articles and blog cover more than you ever wanted to know about local government. Well, maybe not "more"; there's still a few issues he won't touch for whatever reason. But he's energetic and writes copiously on his blog. More gossip column than hard news, but heavy on local politicians. If you're that "one in a million" elected who effectively overcomes the bureaucratic morass, Sam will find you. And we'll cheer you on.
Without any facts to base it on, I have no comment on the misogynistic machine you describe. Perhaps you'll share more?