Why is the democratian lying about Boldt? (Updated)

(Earlier, I had been misinformed that Stephanie Rice had actually attended a family dinner for Thanksgiving, to include initial identification through a picture.

As it turns out, that was not the case, and I regret the error.)

That said, Stephanie Rice has attacked me personally with her factually incorrect bullshit... also involving Boldt. 

When Rice prints this garbage:

Boldt did not violate any laws when he voted to approve the loan, despite the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Dawn Boldt worked as an intake coordinator, or, for the purposes of the state’s ethics policy for municipal officers, a fixed-wages employee.

Had she been a salaried employee -- such as the executive director -- there would have been a problem, said Bronson Potter, the county’s chief civil deputy prosecutor.

But according to the ethics policy, Boldt’s interest was only “remote.”

She's either ignorant... or lying.

IF Boldt didn't "violate the law," then why did Dawn Boldt quit?  If he didn't "violate the law," then why is Mielke's vote needed to make this loan?

Those facts speak for themselves.  And what they say is this: Marc Boldt broke the law and actively engaged in a conflict of interest that he would have, at minimum, indirectly benefited from because we are a community property state.

Even the paper ADMITTED that Boldt violated the law by failing to disclose that his wife was an employee of Lifeline.  Not a SALARIED employee... but an EMPLOYEE... no qualifiers added.

Jeers:

To Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt for neglecting to take a proactive stance as the county made an emergency loan of $190,000 to Lifeline Connections.

The private nonprofit is the county’s only inpatient substance abuse treatment center, and it needed the money to make payroll. Boldt could have owned this issue (which evolved into a controversy) and prevented the ensuing dust-up if he had made more clear from the outset that his wife works for Lifeline. Make that “worked” for Lifeline. Dawn Boldt resigned on Thursday. A more open and pre-emptive approach would have kept the public better informed and perhaps doused much of the resultant criticism.

Here's what THE LAW  (RCW 42.23.040) says: (Page 11, MSRC http://www.mrsc.org/publications/ktt11.pdf )

The conditions for the exemption in those cases of "remote interest" are as follows:


1. The officer must fully disclose the nature and extent of the interest, and it must be noted in the official minutes or similar records before the contract is made.
2. The contract must be authorized, approved, or ratified after that disclosure and recording.
3. The authorization, approval, or ratification must be made in good faith.
4. Where the votes of a certain number of officers are required to transact business, that number must be met without counting the vote of the member who has a remote interest.
5. The officer having the remote interest must not influence or attempt to influence any other officer to enter into the contract. It is accordingly recommended that the officer with a remote interest should not participate, or even appear to participate, in any manner in the governing body’s action on the contract

Under these circumstances, Boldt violated at least 3 parts of one law, even if the interest WAS remote.  And the "hourly wage" nonsense that Rice is spouting?  That doesn't mean, in any way, that Boldt does not have an interest based on the community property laws of this state.  But as I wrote earlier, and a lawyer has attested, there were violations of the "conflict" statutes, the issue of "salary" as an exemption is not mentioned, Boldt DID violate the law and Mielke coming along and voting for the loan later does not unfire that bullet... OR unring that bell.