Mayor Tim "The Liar" Leavitt and City Manager Pat McDonnell busted in a PDC Complaint.

.
Uh oh... looks like someone else has painted a target on The Liar's political chest: Steven Sharkansky.

Sharkansky, best known as "The Shark" and the owner of the legendary Sound Politics blog, apparently has some problem with The Liar's effort to use city government to oppose an initiative or two.

The Shark is alleging violation of the ubiquitous RCW 42.17.130... the prohibition against use of public facilities in support of, or opposition to, candidates or initiatives. As per a suggestion by a poster, it is fitting to remind the reader that Mr. McDonnell is leaving the city's employee on November 1.

I'll put up a link to the complaint as soon as I get one. Meanwhile, here is the substance of The Shark's complaint, typically well written and to the point.

I reiterate to Leavitt: It totally sucks to be you.

Mr. Phil Stutzman
Director of Compliance
Washington State Public Disclosure Commission
711 Capitol Way, Room 206
PO Box 40908
Olympia, WA 98504-0908

By e-mail: Phil.Stutzman@pdc.wa.gov

Re: Complaint against Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt and Vancouver City Manager Pat McDonnell, 210 E. 13th St. Vancouver,Washington, (360) 487-8600.

Dear Mr. Stutzman:

I am submitting this written complaint pursuant to WAC 390-37-040(2). I have reason to believe that Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt and Vancouver City Manager Pat McDonnell may have violated RCW 42.17.130, regarding the use of public agency facilities in campaigns. Specifically, I believe that Mayor Leavitt and Mr. McDonnell are using public facilities of the City of Vancouver to oppose statewide Initiatives 1100 and 1105, which are on the November 2010 ballot. I am principally concerned with the apparent violations in opposition to Initiative 1100.

Mr. McDonnell has drafted for consideration by the Vancouver City Council a proposed resolution of the council “expressing its collective position, opposing Initiatives 1100 and 1105”. [attached as Exhibit A]. This resolution is posted on the council web site, linked from the page with the Agenda for the council’s October 11, 2010 meeting [a print-out of the Agenda page is attached as Exhibit B]. Mayor Leavitt was quoted in the Columbian newspaper on October 8, 2010 claiming credit for putting the resolution before the council in order to “to raise awareness about the potential impact of the initiatives before ballots are mailed Wednesday”. [Exhibit C]

I understand that RCW 42.17.130(1) expressly permits a city council to pass a resolution opposing a ballot proposition. However, it does not expressly permit other city officials to use public facilities to prepare and/or promote a draft resolution in order to encourage a city council to take action to oppose a ballot proposition, or to otherwise sway public opinion against a ballot proposition. Nor am I able to find any other statute, administrative rule or other official interpretation of RCW 42.17.130 which would permit such an activity.

The oppositional tone, one-sided nature, timing and intent of Mayor Leavitt and Mr. McDonnell’s statements about the initiatives to the press and in the draft resolution and supporting documents are self-evident. I consider it an aggravating factor that many of the assertions about the initiatives which are presented as if objective statements of fact are not actually true. For example:

• The City Manager’s staff report introducing the draft resolution states: “Estimated $2 million annual negative City budget impact from passage of I-1100 and/or I-1105, after their full implementation.” The draft resolution itself refers to “the additional loss of $2 million per year”, without distinguishing between I-1100 and I-1105. “$2 million” is a gross exaggeration of The City Manager’s own budget presentation estimate that the I-1100 only impacts the liquor board’s “profit” distributions, which have historically been $1 - $1.1 million a year, and are not expected to be higher than $1.2 million a year even if the status quo liquor system were retained. [relevant pages of the budget presentation are attached as Exhibit D]. In fact, the Liquor Control Board’s own financial records show that the funds it distributes to cities under the rubric of “profits” include millions of dollars a year taxes and fees which do not derive from store sales and would continue to be distributed whether or not I-1100 passes. The share of “profits” distributed to individual cities that derives from store revenue is limited to about 80% [Exhibit E].

• The roughly $800,000 which the City of Vancouver has historically received each year from state liquor store proceeds, and would anticipate to receive in the absence of privatization, represents less than 6/10 of 1% of the total city general, street and fire fund revenue of $140 million [as per Exhibit D]. Although Mayor Leavitt is quoted in the Columbian saying “the city of Vancouver loses 15 more police officers,” it strains credulity that $800,000 is sufficient to fund 15 police officers for a year, or that Vancouver’s state liquor store receipts are specifically earmarked to law enforcement. It is also implausible that a responsible city administration would necessarily respond to voter mandated discontinuation of a relatively minor revenue source by first firing police officers, without exploring other budget cuts or sources for revenue generation.

• The draft resolution claims that “the passage of either or both of these Initiatives will allow every business, whether it is a grocery store, convenience store or mini-mart that currently sells wine and beer, to sell hard liquor”. It is not true that I-1100 would allow every store currently licensed to sell wine and beer to be licensed to sell distilled spirits. The initiative explicitly restricts that privilege to licensees “in good standing”, which grants the Liquor Board the authority to limit the privilege only to those licensees with the best records for responsible alcohol sales.

• The draft resolution claims further that the initiative “will … adversely affect the City’s Alcohol Impact Area”. This is also not true. The Liquor Control Board implements Alcohol Impact Areas by restricting licensees in that area from selling high alcohol beers and wines. I-1100 explicitly excludes licensees with such restrictions on their licenses from receiving an upgraded license to sell spirits. I-1100 also explicitly allows cities to impose further restrictions on the location of liquor licenses through zoning and land use regulations.

• The draft resolution also asserts that I-1100 “may also contribute to increased risk of underage and problem drinking.” This is not a statement of objective fact, but unsupported speculation. While it is vacuously true that such an outcome “may” happen, it is not the only possible outcome. The experience of other states does not reveal an association between private sector vs. state controlled liquor sales and rates of underage or problem drinking. The draft resolution and supporting documents fail to mention that I-1100 explicitly allocates additional funding to the Liquor Control Board’s law enforcement and abuse reduction functions ($3.7 million annually, by the OFM’s estimate, an increase of roughly 20%). It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that I-1100 would contribute to a reduction in underage and problem drinking.

Sincerely,

//s//Stefan Sharkansky

Imagine. Someone like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt actually lying to get the voters to vote a certain way? Why, that's out of the question!

Heh.

Crossposted at Tim Leavitt Watch.
.