2015 General Election – not a long ballot, but important
issues
I see from the blog report that people have been checking in.
Sorry, it took longer than expected to research all those advisory issues.
Here’s
the basic information:
Ballots
must be returned no later than November 3.
You can mail your ballot, as long as the
postmark is on or before November 3.
Or you can drop your ballot into one of 5
special collection boxes at:
Island County Elections Office
400 N Main
Street Coupeville
Oak Harbor City Hall 865 SE Barrington Oak Harbor
Trinity Lutheran Church 18341 Hwy 525 Freeland
Ken’s Corner Red Apple 4141 Hwy 525 Clinton
Camano Annex 121 N East Camano
Dr Camano
For
questions, contact elections@co.island.wa.us
or
phone 360-679-7366 M-F 9:00 – 4:00
There are 2 initiatives on the ballot this year. One good
and one very very bad. Check them out:
I-1366 re taxes
The ballot
statement reads: “I-1366 concerns state taxes and fees. The measure would
decrease the sales tax rate unless the legislature refers to voters a
constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds legislative approval or voter
approval to raise taxes, and legislative approval for fee increases.
“Fiscal
impact of reducing sales tax: $8 billion over 6 years to general fund + $12.8
million to performance audit fund. B&O would increase $39.9 million, local
tax revenue would increase $226.1 million. If an amendment is referred to the
voters, 2017 election expenditures would increase by $101k with unknown
increase in local election expenditures.”
This is
unconstitutional, but it will cost huge amounts to go through the process to
prove that. Meanwhile, much more important uses for that money are going
unfunded.
This is another of Eyman’s “kill government” initiatives.
Revenue
from state sales tax accounts for 47.2% of all state revenue, +/- $15.6
billion, in the general fund 2013-15. It is the state’s single largest source
of revenue. This initiative is supported by the state Republican party, and the
Citizens’ Committee for the right to Keep and Bear Arms.
donors:
Clyde Holland (CEO, Holland Partner Group, developing,
redeveloping, acquiring, and managing multifamily communities ) $450k
Kenneth Fisher, billionaire investor $125k
(founder, CEO, Fisher Investments, a money management firm)
Kemper Holdings LLC $100k
CEO, Kemper Freeman, Bellevue developer has put in $1.1 mil
personally. His specific interest is to prevent light rail in Washington.
National Electrical Contractors Assoc, Puget Sound Chp $100k
Garneau Properties, property management $50k
Lawrence P Hughes, financial advisor $50k
Fremont Dock Co, a real estate company in Fremont $45k
Robert Rotella ,
Rotella Capital Management $25k
opponents:
Northwest Progressive Institute
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, WA
Washington Conservation Voters
Statewide Poverty Action Network
League of Women Voters of Washington
Professional & Technical Employees Union, local 17
Tax Sanity (Working for Reform and Closing Tax Loopholes)
Transition 2030 (advocates for renewable energy, modern
transit, and high mpg vehicles, and to replace Washington’s current tax system
with a modern progressive income tax)
WA State Democratic party
WA State progressive caucus
numerous county & district Democratic organizations
This comes down to Eyman trying to take the state hostage.
Either we agree to cut the sales tax by more than 15% or we amend the
constitution to make any tax legislation require a 2/3 majority vote. The
initiative was brought before the King County Superior Court, which gave a
peculiar opinion. The judge agreed that it was most probably unconstitutional –
but then allowed it to be placed on the ballot anyway. From the opinion: “although
the ultimate decision is obviously the Supreme Court’s, there is a substantial
possibility that 1-1366 will be found to be invalid for exceeding the scope of
the initiative process, and that voters will be voting on a measure which will
never go into effect.” We can only hope.
In the last few weeks the Attorney General has been looking
very closely into Eyman’s finances, and has determined that he has been taking
kickbacks for many years, among other financial crimes (like money laundering).
The guy is a crook and his initiative is crooked.
Needless to say I will be voting a resounding NO!
I-1401 re trafficking
of Threatened and Endangered animals
The ballot
statement reads “I-1401 concerns trafficking of animal species threatened with
extinction. This measure would make selling, purchasing, trading, or
distributing certain animal species threatened with extinction, and products
containing such species, a gross misdemeanor or class-C felony, with exceptions
for certain types of transfers.”
The US
signed onto the CITES treaty to protect endangered species 45 years ago. This
measure would bring Washington state law partly into line with the federal
regulations. There are exceptions for antiques and for educational and
scientific transfers.
This
initiative was bankrolled by Paul Allen. It covers only 10 species. This is
nowhere near as complete and thorough as we’d like, but it’s a good start.
Supporters include:
The Humane Society
Woodland Park Zoo
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Foundation
International Fund for Animal Welfare
African Wildlife Foundation
The Zoo Society
Conservation Northwest
Born Free USA
96 Elephants
WildAid
Washington Conservation Voters
Washington State Democrats
Mainstream Republicans of Washington
The Seattle Aquarium
Pont Defiance Zoo & Aquarium
Metro Parks Tacoma
Not surprisingly, it is opposed by the NRA, the Safari Club
International, and a group calling itself Legal Ivory Rights, based in
Chehalis.
It does not go as far as I would have liked, but it’s a good
start, so I’ll be voting YES.
Advisory
votes
These require some explanation, and the best source is the
Secretary of State’s office. Here is their statement from last year. I found
none for this year.
“This is
the third straight year that Advisory Votes have been on Washington’s General
Election ballot. The first two Advisory Votes were placed on the 2012 ballot
and Nos. 3 through 7 appeared last year. Because Advisory Votes are nonbinding,
the result is not a repeal of the bill, as would be the case with a referendum
measure. The Legislature is not required to take action based on the results of
Advisory Votes.”
So this is basically
Tim Eyman wasting a lot of the public’s time and tax dollars - again. Thanks
Tim. Oh, and the peculiar, rather in-your-face language comes out of the Eyman
initiative as well. It definitely takes some decoding.
#10 ESHB 1449
Ballot language: “The legislature imposed, without a vote of
the people, oil spill response and administration taxes to apply to crude oil
or petroleum products transported by railroad, costing $17 mil for government
spending.”
This really
is about oil spill prevention and response. The legislature asked the Dept of
Ecology to prepare a report on just how ready we are to deal with exploding oil
trains or grounding supertankers. That report was finished early this year.
There has for a long time been a tax of 4¢/barrel of oil for prevention
programs (think tug at Neah Bay) and 1¢/barrel for oil spill response. There is
also a regulatory fee on railroads, which is now increasing from 1.5% to 2.5%
of gross intrastate operating revenues, specific to trains hauling oil. We’ve
seen what happens when oil trains explode, which they do with painful
regularity. People die, the environment is trashed, and the cleanup cost is
astronomical. This tax supports prevention and response for oil train
accidents, in the hope that the oil companies pay for their disasters rather
than we taxpayers.
There’s a
whole lot more to this bill and it looks like something we desperately need. It
passed in the senate 46/0 and in the house 95/1. Sounds really controversial,
doesn’t it?
For all the
gory detains (its actually a good read) google:
1449-S.E HBR FBR 15.pdf
The wording
of these advisory votes is:
This tax increase should be:
[ ] repealed
[ X ] maintained
I will be
voting to MAINTAIN this “tax increase”
#11 2SSB 5052
Ballot language: “The legislature imposed, without a vote of
the people, the marijuana excise tax on medical marijuana sales, costing an
amount that cannot currently be estimated, for government spending.”
The claim
in the voters’ pamphlet says that it extends the marijuana excise tax to
medical marijuana. But reading 2SSB 5052 I can’t find that. I have no trouble
taxing recreational drugs, including marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco. I have a
lot of trouble taxing medicines, and medical marijuana is medicine, pure and
simple. It should not be taxed.
This bill
is titled “Establishing the cannabis patient protection act.” I’ve now read the Senate bill report and its
still fuzzy to me. It changes the rules for medical marijuana and the claim
here is that it taxes it. I didn’t find that in the bill report, but I could be
wrong. There are good people on both sides of the issue, which doesn’t help. It
does create a medical marijuana registry which would be accessible to law
enforcement, and this scares a lot of people, probably with good reason.
More
detailed and careful reading reveals that it would effectively ban marijuana
grow coops (no more than 4 people) and no grow coop could be within 15 miles of
a recreational retail outlet. Since everyplace on Whidbey is within 15 miles of
a retail store, growing for personal medical use would be illegal. And if someone
needs one of the Cannabis strains useful for treating seizures (doesn’t get you
stoned) and the local store doesn’t sell it because there’s not much demand,
they’re out of luck. And if a medical marijuana patient can’t afford to buy it
from the overpriced legal store, it will be illegal for them to grow it for
their own non-commercial use
The people
who sponsored 502 testified against this bill. All in all, I’m inclined to be
suspicious. Which is why I’ll be voting REPEALED.
lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/.../5052-S2%20SBR%20FBR%2015.pdf
This tax increase
should be
[X] repealed
[ ] maintained
#12 SESSB 5987
Ballot language: “The legislature imposed, without a vote of
the people, additional taxes on motor vehicles and special fuels costing an
estimated, 3.707 billion in the first 10 years, for government spending.”
This bill
is titled “an act relating to transportation revenue”
Right now
we’re paying 37.5¢/gallon in motor vehicle fuel taxes. That money and what we
pay in licensing fees may only be spent on roads – bigger better highways.
Specifically, it must be spent to build, maintain, operate, and administer
highways and ferries. There are lots of exceptions in there for ORVs,
non-highway vehicles, snowmobiles, and marine uses. Weight fees (that’s the
$30.00/year) are allowed to be spent on “Multimodal transportation”. That would
be buses, light rail, trails, etc.
This bill
increases the motor vehicle fuel tax by 5¢/gallon in 2015, 4.2¢/gallon in 2016
and 2.5¢/gallon in 2017. Revenue from this tax will be available for
transportation uses other than just roads. It also raises the tax amount for
off-road vehicle fuel use, a gaping loophole which has long needed closing.
Weight fees are also increased. The biggest thing this does is allow the fuel
tax to be used for non-road transit. The intent is to make it possible for more
people to use public transit so we don’t need as much fuel or as many roads.
Yep, its going to cost a bit more at the pump.
This is the
bill that the republicans poisoned with a proviso that the governor is not
allowed to enact a low-carbon fuel standard. But it funds light rail and other
non-automobile transportation, so its worth it even with the poison pill.
Testifying
in favor was every mayor west of the Cascades, along with the Trucking
Association. Against, interestingly enough, were a number of my favorite
environmental organizations. They were not against the bill but against the
poison pill.
I’m hoping
that we can remove that poison pill in the near future. In the meantime, I
intend to support what we have. I’ll be
voting MAINTAINED.
lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/.../2015.../5987-S.E%20SBR%20APS%2015.pdf
This tax increase should be
[ ] repealed
[X] maintained
#13 ESSB 6138
Ballot language: “The legislature increased business and
occupation tax revenues and excluded certain software manufacturers from a
retail sales tax exemption, without a vote of the people, costing $1.449 mil,
for government spending.”
This bill is titled: An act relating to increasing state
revenue through improved compliance methods and eliminating tax preferences for
royalties and certain manufacturing equipment.
This one
gets pretty murky pretty quickly. The intent is to close loopholes enjoyed by
certain segments of the business world, namely those businesses which produce
and sell software or which franchise to sell software. Because software is
usually not a box you carry away, payment for software is categorized as a
royalty payment. There are some strange laws regarding the taxing of royalty
payments, largely because the product is so ephemeral and can be sold anywhere
in the world on line. There are more clauses than I can wrap my head around,
but a lot of people I really don’t like are screaming that this will kill them
and that all business in Washington will dry up and blow away. Given who is
against it, I’ll be voting to MAINTAIN.
lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/.../6138-S.E%20SBR%20APS%2015%20E3.pdf
This tax increase should be
[ ] repealed
[X] maintained
Ok, on to the candidates. I’m unhappy to report that of the
huge long list of positions on the ballot, only a tiny few have more than a
single candidate. I just scrubbed all the one-horse races, and that leaves just
the few below.
Langley mayor
Tim Callison timcallison@whidbey.com
His
wife currently sits on the city council (she has just announced that she will
resign on January 1 if Callison is elected), so he has some idea of how things
work and what the issues are. I am a bit nervous about his bigger business
background and vision, among other
things, to “plan sustainable growth for residents and business activities.” I
wish I had the time to ask him what he means by that.
Interestingly
and oddly enough, part of why I now would not endorse Tim Callison is because
he does not know enough of local politics to know that associating with or
citing me is considered political suicide. Maybe the taboo on WEAN has
lessened. What it represents to me is that this is someone who is new enough to
the community that he has not learned how it works and the deeper layers of
what’s going on. I’m not sure why he
chose to drop my name, but it was a bit of a mis-quote. He cites me as saying
that moving Cascade Avenue has made the bluff much more stable. Not so fast
there. What I actually said was that the
only way to stabilize the over-steepened bluff would be to cut back all the way
to the houses on the other side of Camano Avenue – not a very realistic
option. Which leads me to conclude that
maybe Mr Callison does not listen as carefully as he should.
I
have heard it said that there are some who endorse Mr Callison because the city
council hates Sharon Emerson and they believe she would not be able to govern
in the face of such opposition. Not a good reason. I’m sorry to see the council
quite that partisan in this matter, but I continue to believe that Sharon
Emerson will be the better mayor for keeping what is special about
Langley.
Luckily,
I don’t have to vote in Langley. If I did, I would vote for Sharon Emerson.
Sharon Emerson sharon@sharon4mayor.com
A
long- time resident and business person. Level-headed. Ardently anti-funicular
for reasons with which I agree wholeheartedly. She’s not been directly involved
in city government before, although she has attended council meetings regularly
for at least the last year. She’s a quick study, and lack of experience has not
prevented others from being elected. She has been known to have a sharp tongue,
which she has been consciously curbing. Good for her. I know and like Sharon,
which rather colors my opinion. I think she would do well as mayor. I have
heard that the city council is out actively campaigning for her opponent. I
hope that they can overcome their partisanship if/when Sharon becomes mayor and
work with her for the best of the city.
Again,
if I could vote in Langley, it would be for Sharon
Emerson.
Oak
Harbor mayor
Jim
Campbell blandjcampbell@aol.com
He
was invited to speak to the Oak Harbor Republicans but did not attend. He is
endorsed by the right wing tea baggers at Island Politics, which I see as a
serious negative. I have seen him in action on the Oak Harbor city council and
was seriously underwhelmed. Says he’s running so Severns would not run
unopposed. Not the best reason.
He
was invited to speak to the Oak Harbor Republicans but did not attend. He is
opposed by the right wing tea baggers at Island Politics, which strikes me as
an endorsement. His priorities seem reasonable, given that the current mayor is
an egomaniacal ass who has severely damaged the city.
Luckily
I don’t have to vote in Oak Harbor. If I did I would most likely vote for Bob Severns, but it would be an ignorant vote.
Hospital District commissioner
2
Rob Born, Greenbank, retired attorney robborn28@yahoo.com
Whidbey
General Hospital Blogger –consistently hyper critical
of Whidbey General on any and every issue. He is much supported by the
ultra-right tea party faction. That alone makes me very nervous. He’s retired Navy, retired attorney, and all
curmudgeon.
I
watched Mr Born at a candidate’s night and found him thin-skinned and
unconvincing. He challenged Georgia Gardner on the hospital’s accounting,
claiming that there was some slight of hand to make the books look better than
they were. Ms Gardner responded that she had tried time after time to explain
the basics of non-profit accounting to Mr Born but he really didn’t want to
hear it. That certainly came across during the candidates’ night. Among other
things Born accused unspecified people of “character assassination” and
insisted that he would not stand for it. No clue what that was about. During
the entire session he came across as very defensive.
Born
said that it would be irresponsible not to explore the option of associating
with a large hospital chain, that UW and Swedish were not religiously based so
might be options. He claimed that he did not favor a merger or sale of the
hospital (well that’s a relief) but that there would be benefit from some
unspecified form of affiliation.
He
claimed that the hospital board was irresponsible in failing to oversee
finances properly, claiming that the board had never scrutinized the regular
payment vouchers. He promised to be a watchdog. He further claimed that the
board was responsible for hiring and re-hiring a bad CEO, and that the (former)
CEO’s misdeeds were on their heads. He also claimed that the hospital was
running huge deficits and had been for at least the last 3 years and that staff
and board – meaning Ms Gardner – were fudging the numbers. That’s a serious
accusation.
And
of course he claims that the hospital does its business in secret and he wants
to break open that secrecy. This shows, according to all the other candidates,
his ignorance of the federal laws which require precisely that secrecy in
dealing with patient accounts and medical information.
And
then he claimed that the hospital had an unusually high rate of turnover. That
is rather rich coming from someone who has been directly responsible for some
of that turnover by badgering and badmouthing some of the hospital’s staff.
The
session ended with Born claiming that hospital board members had “slung mud”
and that Ms Gardner had not disavowed them. He said they had disgraced
themselves. The audience was clearly puzzled by all this. He further claimed
that he had been heckled, name-called, and suffered a challenge to his bar
association membership. He pledged to visit patients every day (this would be a
violation of their privacy rights).
I
could go on and on and on. This man is worse than a loose cannon. Electing him
to the hospital board would cripple the board and drag the hospital down into
dysfunction.
Georgia
Gardner – incumbent, CPA, former state legislator gardnergeorgia@msn.com
I
don’t believe Ms Gardner is the great white light, but she is definitely a
decent human being, competent at her work, and with a primary interest in
keeping Whidbey General Hospital solvent and functional. I have not heard any
such about her opponent.
During
the candidates’ night Ms Gardner made clear that the hospital’s operations and
what the board does and does not do are mandated by state law. She gave the
board’s job description as selecting and overseeing the CEO, being accountable
to the public, meeting once a month to hear reports from each department head,
to approve spending, to settle disputes/issues between department heads and the
CEO, to plan for the hospital’s future, and above all to meet the hospital’s
legal and financial obligations.
In
response to Born’s accusation that they did not question the payment vouchers
brought to them, she said that each of those had long since been discussed and
approved individually, that board action was a final stamp of approval and
therefore there was no need for discussion at that stage. Among other things
this seems to reflect Born’s lack of understanding of how the system operates.
One
of the points which Gardner stressed was the contracting for and implementing of
a new electronic records keeping system. She stressed that it was a major
outlay, but that it was not a loss but an investment. Federal law now requires
electronic record keeping, and it makes plain common sense. It is also hugely
expensive if you want to do it right. Whidbey General wanted to do it right.
The board did not want to borrow money to implement the system so it came out
of general operating funds. That made the balance sheet look very poor for the
3 years it has been in the works. But with the system coming on line it is paid
in full. That is a good thing. Mr Born evidently did not understand this
purchase, claiming the hospital was running a deficit of $2.5 – 5 million over
these 3 years. He did acknowledge that this year (now that the electronic
records system is paid for) the hospital is running a surplus.
It
was at this point that Ms Garner became just a bit exasperated. Born claimed
that the books were being cooked by claiming levy proceeds as income. Ms Gardner
said she had been trying to teach Born non-profit accounting, but evidently he
was not much of a student. In spite of her explanations and instruction, he
continues to insist that there is perfidy in the budget and books.
Born
claimed that there were never any dissenting votes on the board and that it
represented a clubby little group. He wanted to “mix it up a bit” (his words).
Ms Gardner responded that they did indeed engage in a lot of debate, but their
focus was on the issues and not on individuals, and that their approach was not
confrontation but questioning. She said they all speak up, but they collaborate
in reaching solutions.
On
the question of staff turnover, Ms Gardner agreed that Whidbey General is 25%
above the state average, but that most of that is attributable to the presence
of NAS Whidbey. Navy wives come to work at the hospital and 2 or 3 years later
they move on when their husband is re-assigned. Also, what few of us knew is
that Navy surgeons operate at Whidbey General and are therefore accredited
there. When they move on it shows up as staff turnover at Whidbey General. Born was not willing to accept this
explanation, claiming it was an excuse.
Ms
Gardner closed by saying that she keeps a very close watch on hospital
finances. She said she has a “compliance bible” checklist which she uses to
meet every deadline. She is now working with the VA with the intent to provide
a local alternative to veterans who presently have to go to the mainland for
services.
What
it comes down to is that Georgia Gardner is a tried and true hardworking member
of the Whidbey General Hospital board who is also an accountant, who keeps
careful track of the finances. Rob Born is a rabble rouser and curmudgeon of
the far-right tea party persuasion who has some sort of grudge against the
hospital. Putting him on the board would be an act of destruction.
I
will be voting resoundingly for Georgia Gardner.
Hospital
district commissioner 4
Nancy
Fey – incumbent marnan1385@comcast.net
The
candidates’ night session with Nancy Fey and Erika Carnahan was a bit peculiar.
Ms Carnahan seems to be a very nice person. She was scared to death to speak in
front of a large group, freezing up when she was asked to speak. I felt sorry
for her. What made it peculiar is that Ms Carnahan pretty much echoed
everything Nancy Fey said. She said she was running to support the hospital –
or Nancy. It made me wonder why she was running at all.
Nancy
Fey was appointed to fill out a term when the incumbent resigned and has a good
sense of how things work. She has worked at Whidbey General for 26 years. She
agreed completely with Georgia Gardner on the issue of affiliation. They are
both completely opposed, but are willing to discuss partnerships where they may
be beneficial.
Its
hard to bring up specific issues because Georgia Gardner, Nancy Fey, and Erika
Carnahan all agreed on just about every question while Rob Born opposed and
disagreed.
Erika
Carnahan elynn1965@hotmail.com
As
mentioned above, Ms Carnahan is very new to politics and public speaking. My
impression is of a nice person who may make a good board member with some more
experience and exposure. Either she has changed her politics radically since
filing or the Island Politics crowd has
endorsed her only because she is not the incumbent. Considering that she agreed
with the incumbent, Nancy Fey, on every issue at the candidates’ night, I’m inclined
toward the “not the incumbent” theory. She has worked in medical
administration. The News-Times quoted her as objecting to the complacency of
the current board. That was not brought up at the candidates’ night.
I am
by no means enamored of the current board of Whidbey General. On the other
hand, I’m not ready for a revolution there. I think keeping the incumbent is
probably the best move.
I will
be voting for Nancy Fey.
And that’s it for this election. Now fill in your ballot and
get it returned. Remember to sign and date the outside of the mailing envelope.
