One of the downsides to media relations staff refusing to relate with the media, is that with our questions left unanswered, we’ve got no choice but to speculate. And one of the speculations going around the environmental community these days is that Attorney General Rob McKenna decided not to appeal, partially at the urging of representatives from the Public Utility Districts.
So I repeat the question I posed to his office in the email they refused to even acknowledge:
7. Has the AG or his staff discussed this case with representatives from the Okanogan PUD or the WA PUD Association? Whom? When?
I believe there may already be a public records request put in on this question, but I’m not really interested in whether McKenna slipped up and communicated with the PUDs via his state email address, or arranged a meeting or telephone call via official channels. I want him to come clean with the public and tell us whether he or his staff ever talked to the folks on the other side, under any circumstances, before deciding not to file the appeal.
Because listening to him talk about his obligation to protect the broader public interest, it certainly sounds that way.
If the AG talked with PUD in any way other than in the interests of the Commissioner about a cause which the AG has represented the Commissioner, the AG is not in a good position.
This clown needs to see the end of an impeachment hearing soon.
Some trolls are seriously worried about this ruining Bobby Mac’s run for guv in 2012.
As if his miserable interference with health care reform isn’t enough.
Inslee! Inslee! Inslee!
Chris @1 is right. In addition, unless the PUD’s lawyer was present, McKenna cannot properly talk to the opposing client. In a fair world, that would lead to WSBA sanctions but that won’t ever happen.
# 3: McKenna can’t talk to an opposing party without their counsel – unless their counsel gives his consent.
The PUD and/or it’s attorney can certainly open general settlement discussions directly with McKenna, without Goldmark being present. This is normal, that’s what happens before an attorney calls his client and says “they’ve made an offer…”.
What is more likely to have happened, however, is that PUD commissioners in the red counties met informally with McKenna at some political or semi-political gatherings, at which time they probably expressed sympathy and understanding with McKenna “being forced” to defend Goldmark, and promised their support in future elections. The outcome of this particular case wasn’t discussed, unless somebody in the conversation was a total idiot. But the message was conveyed and received, nonetheless – you scratch my back, and we’ll scratch yours.
@4 For the purposes of a deal, which is in the client’s interest to listen, then yes. If that conversation had any part of the AG or his staff indicating their unwillingness to proceed with an appeal, then no.
To work around this question, Commissioner Goldmark has standing to request all records related from the AG without a FOIA pertaining to this case. Goldmark should ask for a detail of all communications between the AG/AG’s Office/AG’s Staff and the PUD or PUD assocation concerning this case.
Goldy spews:
You’ve sidestepped these two questions several times.
Were you provided, by some other party, the information that you used to write your posts regarding Rossi and McKenna vs. Goldmark? If so, were you were compensated, in some form, for doing so?
@6) You should know by now that Goldy has no knack for getting compensated for his work.
@7
and even if he did why would it matter??
most all media types have their information provided to them by another party and most all are also compensated by another party…..ITS CALLED A F’in JOB…..the poster @ 6 should look into one.
or is he/she like most on the boards and post while on company time????
Wrong… It’s Number two (smells as always) who needs to find a job!
It’s NOT the CRIME, it’s the COVER-UP . . . . .
na na na na hey hey…