The Columbian blows it: In Our View - Perception Counts

I agree with the title. I’ve got some heartburn by the typically underhanded crap the Columbian all too frequently leaves out when they’re attacking a Republican.

The Cliff Notes version is that County Commissioner Marc Boldt will be voting on an expansion of the GMA boundaries. Included in one of the areas under consideration for expansion is his brother, Gary’s, dairy farm.

The Columbian, a rag frequently of the “ethically-challenged” ilk, is TERRIBLY concerned about the APPEARANCE of impropriety in such an earth-shaking decision as to whether, or if, Gary Boldt’s 80 acres are included in the expansion.

Folks, this is not a big deal. And, as even the Columbian admits, this does NOT represent ANY ethics or ethical violation.

Which, of course, begs the greater issue. If, as The Columbian admits, this is NOT an ethical violation… then why have they spent so much time and energy reporting it? Why was it worthy of yet another anti-Marc Boldt editorial?

Because the Columbian WANTS to change the very perception they allege they care so much about!

Marc has a spotless reputation of character and integrity.

So, what better way to call that integrity and character into question then to ACT like what Marc is planning on doing is wrong?

Face it, the Columbian opposes this expansion. Critically, it is important to understand that appointed Commissioner Steve Stuart ALSO opposes this effort… even though State Senator Craig Pridemore has pegged Stuart as a sellout.

So, if Marc were to take what amounts to Tom Koenninger’s advice, and to recuse himself from this vote, or even his brother’s portion of the vote, what the Columbian KNOWS would happen, but what they didn’t MENTION would happen (they have a history of selective quote use) is a tie vote. Morris a likely yes… Stuart a definite no.

And what does that mean?

In effect, it means that the Columbian is urging Boldt to arrange to keep his brother’s farm OUT of the boundary expansion… because a tie vote in the county commission means the motion is lost.

They don’t tell you that, though… do they?

Gee. I wonder why.



In Our View - Perception Counts
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Columbian editorial writers

Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt would break no state ethics rules if he were to vote on a revised urban growth boundary that would include 80 acres owned by his brother Gary.

A retired president of the Washington State Association of Counties, Gary Lowe, made that assertion in a story in Tuesday's Columbian, noting that if politicians are excluded from voting on issues that affect all of the politician's "relatives, all neighbors, all members of your church, pretty soon no one can take a vote."

That's true. Clearly, such self-exclusionary tactics can get out of hand and ultimately even interfere with an elected official's duties. The key here is full disclosure, and in these cases, as long the public knows about a politician's personal ties to issues, that kind of public knowledge usually is more crucial than any politician's decision whether or not to vote on such issues.

So, if Boldt votes, as far into the future as the fall of 2006, on a revised Clark County growth plan, and if his brother is to profit from such a decision by the county, then it appears the disclosure obligation will have been met.

More...