Tonight, the case for a potential conflict of interest was laid out re: Bellevue City Council member Grant Degginger and his law firm Lane/Powell by a Bellevue citizen during public comment. Lane/Powell apparently represents Sound Transit and Degginger admitted he has tried and won a case for them.

After Degginger’s comments re: his involvement, he called out his challenger by disparaging a group she belongs to.  That led to an escalation of conflicts between Council members.

See the streamed 09/27/10 City of Bellevue Council meeting on their website at: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/bellevue_tv.htm

Is there “Freedom of Speech” in Vancouver, Washington, guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America? Hmmm…

Vancouver City Council member Jeanne Harris goes absolutely postal on this YouTube post from a Vancouver City Council meeting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_8HgrM4LcE.

Here are a few quotes from a Council meeting in Vancouver where discussion re: light rail and tolls elicited overly heated comments from Council member Jeanne Harris:

To the Mayor of Vancouver re: a citizen: “Gavel Him Down! Gavel Down!”.

To the citizens: “Out!… You’ve Been Dismissed! Leave! You’re Done!“…”This is Our Meeting, and we’ll have it the way we want it, and you will not address separate Council members”.

To a fellow Vancouver Council member: “You do not talk about me when I’m not here” (after Harris left in a huff). “You do not behave that way” (after Harris returned). “You do not chastise people” that way. “Shut Up!”

Which is more concerning?:

1. Censorship of citizen public comment.

2. Exclusion of Subject Matter-One Council member’s opinion that considerations about light rail or tolls are “not appropriate subjects” for  a comment by a private citizen when speaking to the Council that should be representing them about major projects in their own city.

3. Some Vancouver City Council members’ viewpoints that the Council does not have Standing, or any role to play re: determining how an important issue such as light rail or tolls impacts their own city.

4. Accusations- One Council member making unsubstantiated aspersions against another member at a Council meeting, and

5. Procedural- One member overriding the Mayor, and/or demanding that the Mayor shut down and/or limit public comment on a particular subject.

6. Passing the Buck: Certain members absolving themselves of responsiblility for their citizens or city, by saying that local governance has no role to play in a major city project led by a regional governance entity (for which their citizens are taxed- can anyone say: “Taxation Without Representation?”).

Beyond Harris’s extremely poor public behavior, there are much broader, serious questions here that have to do with:

1. Local, regional, state and federal governance,

2. Who can influence a project and for what period of time during a process, and

3. Who makes funding decisions…

These questions echo here in the Puget Sound region, with entities like:

1. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)

2. Sound Transit

3. The Port of Seattle

More on this story later…

Postscript: Fellow Vancouver City Council members have requested an ethics review. Click here: http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/sep/15/2-city-councilors-seek-ethics-probe-of-harris/

This item was originally posted yesterday. State Sen. Ed Murray weighed in today, so we’ve updated it (again) and moved it up. PubliCola had a conversation with state House speaker Frank Chopp yesterday about the upcoming legislative session. When we asked him whether Seattle Mayor-Elect Mike McGinn’s opposition to the downtown tunnel would shift the debate about the tunnel in Olympia, Chopp chuckled. “Mayor-Elect McGinn and I have both been in agreement opposed to the tunnel. We don’t think it’s a good idea. That’s one of the topics we decided to talk about the next time we get together. ...

An East Link tunnel won't choke off Bellevue downtown Seattle Times, United States Sound Transit should decide to study the feasibility of a tunnel in Bellevue for its East Link line, writes Bellevue Mayor Grant Degginger. A street-level alignment would wreak havoc on the city's business and commuting patterns. ...

Once again, they just don’t get it (read our previous post from April 23rd).

Here’s what the Sound Transit Board says in an email re: the 1-2 minute per person “hearing” they received from potentially impacted taxpayers (homeowners and business owners) at the April 23rd Board Meeting:

“The Sound Transit Board on Thursday:

Heard continuing comments from residents, neighborhoods and businesses on various East Link alignment alternatives, impacts and concerns. The Sound Transit Board will consider the selection of a “Locally Preferred Alternative” route in May as part of the East Link Environmental Impact Statement process that continues into 2010.”

3 minutes has always been limiting enough for public comment, let alone LESS TIME.

In addition, Sound Transit has a rule that a citizen can usually only speak to “action items“- agenda items being decided on THAT DAY- by which time, public comment is not in time to actually influence the decision-makers’ process, or give Board members a chance to ask relevant questions of staff.

Public agencies such as Sound Transit, with a constant tax stream from taxpayers, can and should do far better to respond to and represent their constituents, by actually hearing them for more than 60 seconds, when the issue at hand has already been decided (privately) and is moot..

Obviously, the Sound Transit Board has to:

1. Conduct their business (action items) in a timely manner, and understandably,

2. The Board needs to hear staff updates re: the proposed East Link alignments (along with mitigation , costs, and environmental impacts, etc.), but to allocate 1 minute to 2 minutes per person to hear public comments regarding East Link  issues is really lousy and unresponsive, by any standard of accountability to the taxpaying public.

Ever thought of lengthening the meeting so that the public (between 10- 20 regular folks showed up, that aren’t on the transportation payroll in any way(staff, consultants, city representatives) ) can communicate with the Sound Transit Board?

Ever considered public access to government decision-makers as a Sound Transit goal or value?

In an article in the Seattle Times, Reporter Emily Heffter mentions that :

“The Seattle City Council wants to discuss midyear cuts to the city general fund in a series of closed-door meetings with the mayor’s staff, budget committee chairwoman Jean Godden said. The private meetings raise a question about whether the council would be skirting the state’s Open Public Meetings Act.”

…”Alex Fryer, a spokesman for (Seattle Mayor Greg) Nickels, said the smaller meetings would allow decision-makers to “float an idea” and speak more openly than they could in public meetings, he said. “You want to do that in a more private fashion.”

Shouldn’t public officials have the backbone to ask questions and speak their minds regarding issues in a transparent, open fashion?

Shouldn’t their constitents be allowed to know what leads these folks to make decisions and know their stance so that they can vote accordingly at the next election?

What would our state, local & agency governments be like if their Boards could all meet in small groups to float ideas & form their opinions outside of the public eye?

Greg Nickels is also the Sound Transit Chair. Would the public be OK with Sound Transit, WSDOT, &/or other state or regional agencies dividing their Board members into small groups to skirt open meetings laws?

One has to wonder about the reason for their recent “Sound Transit Board retreat“, and what unnecessary amount of money that cost the taxpayers…

On the subject of balancing budgets & what is affordable in this economy, read #4 from Seattle Weekly (click here):

“We’re getting more public transit we don’t use and less of the transit we do“.

“They’re bright orange, they’re empty, and they seem to putter back and forth endlessly without reason: That’s the South Lake Union Streetcar. Then there’s the Metro buses: Yellow and aquamarine, they’re packed to the gills every rush hour with overburdened commuters. Which transit system would you rather see get more money? Sorry. Mayor Greg Nickels’ toy gift to Paul Allen is the one slated for expansion, as the Seattle City Council voted to explore extending the line to Pioneer Square and the U District. An extension to First Hill was slipped into the Sound Transit package approved by voters last November. Meanwhile, King County Executive Ron Sims announced in February that bus service may need to be cut by 20 percent due to a projected $100 million funding shortfall in 2010. Granted, the trolleys and buses are funded from different sources, but come on—$40 million per mile to lay down new putt-putt tracks when we could increase our bus trolleys for a fraction of that?

Sounds like it’s time to seriously rethink our whole scheme for getting from point A to point B.”

Here are comments from John Niles from March 31st via email:

“The following language setting up a careful last look at floating light rail across Lake Washington has been inserted into the State House version of the WSDOT funding bill now being considered in Olympia:

QUOTE: (17) The department [WSDOT] shall not sign the final environmental impact statement for the east link [light rail] project or negotiate an airspace lease with sound transit for the use of the Interstate 90 center roadway for exclusive use by light rail until completion of an independent facility asset assessment by the joint transportation committee. UNQUOTEThe complete bill is at http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Budget/Detail/2009/ht0911bill_0330.pdf .

If you support this provision, now would be a good time to contact your legislators and say that. Light rail fans are screaming for its removal.

This provision fits nicely with the CETA input to the draft East Link EIS that demands a strong bus alternative be included in that light rail EIS assessment to put on record the higher transit capacity and wider geographic reach that is possible from Sound Transit’s billions.

This dust up is related to a House funding provision — described in the Seattle Times at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008952405_bridgerail31m.html and in the online PI at http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/165394.asp — that is proposing to delay State financial support for doing the restriping of the I-90 outer roadway lanes (3 lanes now into 4 narrower lanes) to get ready for passenger railroad takeover of that bridge’s center roadway, instead of filling it up with buses, vanpools, and carpools.

Point to remember — the Federal Record of Decision on East Link is at least a year away from completion. There is time available to do the analysis on I-90 the House wants to see done, and fold it into the final EIS.

Another point — Sound Transit’s daily tax revenue is about to double as a result of its Prop 1 victory. Why shouldn’t Sound Transit foot the bill for all I-90 changes related to light rail?

John Niles”

In an article on Horse’s Ass Blog (click here), the site posts verbiage from the House Transportation Budget (click here):

“(17) The department shall not sign the final environmental impact statement for the east link project or negotiate an airspace lease with sound transit for the use of the Interstate 90 center roadway for exclusive use by light rail until completion of an independent facility asset assessment by the joint transportation committee.”