OK, here's the deal on Boldt's obvious conflicts of interest.

I get that the democratian is now carrying Commissioner Marc Boldt's water like Gunga Din. After all, like any good democrat, Boldt has been working double overtime to implement the downtown mafia's agenda... and, of course, the democratian is a charter member.

Utilizing the smoke-fulled room lack of transparency so favored by the left, Boldt, side-kick to Steve "The Slimeball" Stuart, decided to dip into the county's general fund where we just happened to have the better part of a million dollars laying around, gathering dust, and write a rather large check to Lifeline Connections, a private organization that provides drug rehab services and related to the county.

The purpose of that check was to enable the apparently poorly run out fit to make payroll.

The problem?

Marc's wife, Dawn Boldt, is on that payroll and would have been receiving at least part of that money.

That, of course, is a black letter violation of this state's conflict of interest laws.

In this case, they state:

RCW 42.23.030

Interest in contracts prohibited -- Exceptions.
No municipal officer shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract which may be made by, through or under the supervision of such officer, in whole or in part, or which may be made for the benefit of his or her office, or accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract from any other person beneficially interested therein.

And if they do take such an action:

RCW 42.23.050
Prohibited contracts void -- Penalties for violation of chapter.

Any contract made in violation of the provisions of this chapter is void and the performance thereof, in full or in part, by a contracting party shall not be the basis of any claim against the municipality. Any officer violating the provisions of this chapter is liable to the municipality of which he or she is an officer for a penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars, in addition to such other civil or criminal liability or penalty as may otherwise be imposed upon the officer by law.

In addition to all other penalties, civil or criminal, the violation by any officer of the provisions of this chapter may be grounds for forfeiture of his or her office.

So, since Boldt, the formerly-hated-like-Benton-because-he-used-to-be-a-conservative-and-act-like-one-but-no-longer now acts and votes like he's on the democratian's payroll, they print an article where a lawyer claims that Boldt is in the clear, because he has what's called a "remote interest."

AHHHHHHHHHNNNNNN!  Wrong!

Here's a few points from the Municipal Research and Services Center which directly address this issue and apply here to the state of Washington:

Code of Ethics

State law, codified at RCW 42.23.070, provides a code of ethics for county, city, and special purpose district officials. The code of ethics has four provisions, (The two pertinent of which) as follows:


1. No municipal officer may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself or others; 2. No municipal officer may, directly or indirectly, give or receive any compensation, gift, gratuity, or reward from any source, except the employing municipality, for a matter connected with or related to the officer’s services unless otherwise provided by law;Clearly, Boldt used his position to secure a special privilege for his wife, i.e., the use of taxpayer dollars "loaned" to a private organization so they could make payroll.

Immediately after the loan became public along with the obvious and illegal conflict of interest, Boldt's wife resigned so that Boldt could vote on lending this private organization even more money... for a total of $750,000.

The fact is that Dawn Boldt's immediate resignation is prima facie evidence that her husband, Commissioner Marc Boldt, knew that her employment at Lifeline constituted a conflict of interest, and hoped to mitigate the damage as well as regain his ability to vote for the $750,000 loan WITHOUT conflict allegations as a result... otherwise, why would Boldt have forced his wife to resign?

Boldt never acknowledged the  fact that his wife worked for that company and, as a result, he personally would be benefiting from the "loan." Even if Boldt had a "remote" interest in this financial gain, he was still required, for the record, to acknowledge his wife's employment with the company in question.

He failed to do so.

The MRSC's take on a like situation?
A question often arises when the spouse of a local government employee or contractor is elected or appointed to an office of that local government that has authority over the spouse’s employment or other contract:

Question:  Must the existing employment or contract be terminated immediately?

Answer: The answer to the question is, ordinarily, "no’; however, any subsequent renewal or modification of the employment or other contract probably would be prohibited.

The contract with Lifeline has been renewed more than once during the course of Dawn Boldt's employment at the behest of and with the vote of Commissioner Boldt.  Further:

For example, in a letter opinion by the attorney general to the state auditor, the question involved the marriage of a county commissioner to the secretary of another official of the same county. If the employment had occurred after the marriage, the statute would have applied because of the community property interest of each spouse in the other’s earnings.

The employment occurred both several years after the marriage AND several years after Commissioner Boldt was first elected to the county commission.

As a result, there appear to have been MULTIPLE conflicts... not just this single conflict.

Anyone not carrying the rag's water... or having an "R" after their names... would have been dead meat.

This was a clear violation of the law... and with the information from the MRSC, it appears to have happened repeatedly.

Which takes me back to my next question: who prosecutes Boldt on this issue?  Do I have to go to the AG?  To the ethics board?  What?