One has to wonder: why is the newspaper protecting Jim Jacks.... I mean, Marc Boldt?

The paper's ongoing effort to protect Boldt like he was Jim Jacks continues to mystify me.

Former Rep. Jim Jacks (D-49) was forced out of the legislature by his caucus for alcohol-fueled misconduct with female staffers.  The Columbian refused to report the entirety of the truth on this issue; in fact, when presented with the opportunity, never specifically asked Jacks anything about the issues in question.

It has been over 332 days since Jacks' expulsion.  The excuse repeatedly given by the Columbian is a so-called "lack of a paper trail."  It would seem that actually interviewing people in Olympia who know is somehow out of the question.  I guess those reporters doing such "solid, informative" work just couldn't find the time.

That begs this particular issue: 

The excuse of a lack of a paper trail in this issue doesn't appear to have any sway.  There is a massive and well-developed paper trail here, consisting of county contracts with Lifeline from the county commissioners, including Boldt; many of these legislative and budgetary efforts took place during Dawn Boldt's employment at Lifeline; the record will show that until this most recent episode, Boldt never revealed that employment as required by law (Contrary to Potter's assertions), it will show that he was, at a minimum, required to reveal that employment (Which he did not); it will show that even if his interest WAS "remote" (It isn't... it was, at a minimum, "indirect" because this is a community property state) he was not allowed to vote nor seek the votes of any other council member.

These things are not the fantasy of someone who wishes Boldt had not violated the conflict statues... as the Columbian obviously wished were the case.  These issues are black letter law, easily read and understood.

Which begs the issue here:  What's the deal?  Why, like Jacks, is Boldt getting a pass from the Columbian?

It's not terribly difficult to arrive at a conclusion or two.  Primarily, it has to do with Boldt's steadfast support of the CRC, the replacement of the bridge, the imposition of light rail, and the further imposition of life-long tolls to bring light rail into Vancouver... which, of course, is the only reason to replace the bridge... not to mention Boldt's efforts to make sure the people of this county can't vote on this issue... which, I believe, had much to do with the policy of protecting Jacks, particularly when combined with Jacks' party affiliation.

Conflict law is clear.  Relying on a source that may have his own conflict (who does he work for?  What office is that again?) as the final word on the matter as the Columbian is doing doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, make it so.

When the newspaper prints:

Boldt didn't violate any laws or guidelines by voting Feb. 8 but has opted to not cast subsequent votes concerning Lifeline.

Without even asking him why he isn't voting now that there can't be any conflict flies in the face of rudimentary journalism, given his years-long disregard of the Conflict laws when a conflict actually DID exist.

If Boldt did nothing wrong, then why did Dawn Boldt quit working there?

If Boldt did nothing wrong then why did the initial loan of $175,000 require Mielke's vote to go through, instead of just Boldt's in addition to Stuart's?

The newspaper claims, repeatedly, that Boldt "didn't violate any laws or guidelines."

Really?

Then why did these other things happen?

This isn't going away.  This will be one of the many reasons, I believe, that Boldt will not be re-elected.

On the first of the month, I will be requesting a formal investigation from the County Prosecutor's office, the Attorney General's Office and the State Ethics Board.

Once these people/groups have weighed in, THEN I'll accept a decision that Boldt didn't violate the law, should their conclusion be that there was no violation of the law... the law clearly and specifically laid out... the law that tends to show, that in fact, Boldt not only violated Conflict statutes in this instance... but that he had violated the law before, every time he voted to fund Lifeline during his wife's employment there without the requirements set forward in the conflict laws being considered first.

Stephanie Rice's protestations notwithstanding.