Susan Hutchison’s Sound Transit Board

If elected executive, who would Susan Hutchison appoint to the Sound Transit board? Erica’s got the scoop.


  1. 1

    ArtFart spews:

    I wouldn’t discount Bruce Chapman as another possibility. Maybe Dan Evans would be offered the position of “token moderate”…but he’d probably be smart enough to decline.

  2. 2

    dutch spews:

    What a Scoop that is….you/she forgot Tim Eyeman…

    Sheesh a make up list and you call it a scoop.

  3. 4

    Transit Voter spews:

    Ummm, you all know Erica’s piece is parody, don’t you? (ST boardmembers must be local elected officials, AND one half must be county councilmembers, AND they all must be confirmed by majority vote of the county council.

  4. 5

    Chris Stefan spews:

    Not to mention at least one member must be from the largest city in the county and all 3 King County sub-areas must be equally represented. This means she can’t just appoint one of Kemper’s tools on the Bellevue City council to replace Nickels. Also they serve rotating terms so she can’t just get rid of the 9 other current board members from King County in one fell swoop.

  5. 7

    Deb Eddy spews:

    Geez, guys, this is complete parody, and all the “insiders” know it … but if what we are trying to create is a smarter electorate, if we want our government to be smarter, better … uh, could we try being a little more accurate in our portrayals of how this stuff actually works????

    Just sayin’ …

  6. 13

    James spews:

    59:40 mark – ST spokesman sets the issue up

    60:40 minute mark – WSDOT honcho is surprisingly honest in his description as to WHY Deb Eddy is always complaining about ST board governance. The state created ST, but gets frustrated when it can’t control ST

    62:00 he hits the nail on the head

  7. 16

    Michael spews:


    The state created ST to be able to function independently from Olympia. As long as Olympia is complaining that means ST IS functioning independently from Olympia. Start worrying when Oly stops complaining.

  8. 17

    Joe 4 Hutch NOT I-1033 spews:

    I can assure you that Pam Roach would be considered for the ST board. Why? Because some crank thought that up.

    In other 2011 news, after Sarah Palin declined to run for President deciding instead to support Michelle Bachmann, Susan Hutchinson is starting up her own exploratory committee. So is Dow Constantine – namely to replace Susan when the time is right.

  9. 18


    Deb @7,

    Technically, it’s satire, not parody, though I wouldn’t dismiss the power of either to make a legitimate point, and educate voters.

    Yes, since they’re not elected officials, the folks Erica cites aren’t eligible to be appointed to the ST board. But these are the folks who Hutchison is clearly getting her transportation advice from, and that I assume is Erica’s point. So, assuming a certain amount of intelligence in our readers (and I’d dare to wager that the average HA or Publicola reader is a bit more politically sophisticated than, say, the typical Times reader) Erica’s post does actually educate and inform.

    And besides… is this sort of satire really more misleading than the Times’ “or words to that effect” schtick?

  10. 19

    Carpal Tunnel spews:

    Well, Ordonez told me Dow would appoint the following to the board:

    Bill Ayers
    Gene Debs
    Tom Hayden
    Big Bill Hayward
    Jane Guraffalo
    Harry Bridges
    Bernie Sanders
    Gus Hall
    Jerry Rubin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Bobby Seal
    Joe Hill

    Many of the above are dead, but no matter.

  11. 23

    Carpal Tunnel spews:

    @20: Gus passed in 2000. Read his Wiki entry. Interesting stuff.

    But even a dead commie would make a better ST board member than the likes of Kemper Freeman.

  12. 24

    Deb Eddy spews:

    Goldy @18 … thank you, I stand corrected. That’s a fairer point …about where Susan is getting her input. IF educating voters was part and parcel of the intent, though, then a little judicious editing would’ve helped that piece immensely.

    But we’ve got at least a few posters here who regularly snarl up my points of view with stuff like a video of a “WSDOT honcho” and “controlling” ST. I don’t know what sound bite James read, but it must’ve been a short one. Yes, there’s a level of sophistication here … but I wouldn’t over-sell it.

  13. 25

    Mathew 'RennDawg" Renner spews:

    As a bus rider I hope she would appoint someone who actually cares about the areas outside Seattle. I know Dow would not.

  14. 26

    Michael spews:


    You forgot Earth First founder Dave Foreman. ‘Oh wait Dow wouldn’t appoint him, Foreman’s a Republican.

  15. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @19 No matter that you’re brain dead, either. You’d be just as stupid if you had a functioning brain.

  16. 31

    James spews:

    Deb Eddy @ 24: rather than remaining perpetually defensive and victimized – and rather than using broad / bland generalities – why not give us your impressions of David Dye’s (washdot) comments? Is he correct in his assessment, or not?

    Is the ST spokesman correct that WA State is unique in the way it budgets zero money for the regional transit authority?

    Pretty simple questions, devoid of snarling.

    PS – that link ain’t a soundbite. It’s a fairly honest and detailed discussion on regional transportation.

  17. 32

    Deb Eddy spews:

    James@31: I am neither defensive nor victimized. (Strange choice of words.) You make little to no sense in your rants, which is why I don’t rush to answer them.

    Okay, I watched the clip. Soooo? Both David Dye and Ric Ilgenfritz were speaking from their own perspectives as spokespersons for WSDOT and ST, respectively, and in rather broad generalities. Neither is saying anything specifically about the choices the legislature made in DESIGNING the makeup of the ST board back in the early 90s. That’s what my comments have been directed toward (You design federated and elected boards in different ways, you get different (politicial) results.) So, no, I don’t have any particular reponse to their comments, which were generally within bounds, from their own points of view. I don’t think it terms of one government “controlling” another. I think about whether we’re delivering a high-quality government to the citizens, generally, and how we can improve on that government.

    Each state allocates REVENUE AND/OR REVENUE AUTHORITY to transit differently. IF we were to allocate state revenues DIRECTLY to transit, it’s likely that the legislature would want to retain control over how that money is spent. (And I hesitate to bring it up again, but there is that pesky 18th Amendment.) It is a GOOD thing, I think, for the legislature to give the local entity the revenue authority, because that means the locals have control over how that money is spent. Legislature keeps hands off.

    And, as has been pointed out, the state’s transportation revenue keeps shrinking. I know that it’s popular in some circles to get all outraged about how the state isn’t giving transit the money it deserves … but, geesh, we haven’t been able to give K-12/higher ed, our superior and appellate courts, public and basic health the money they need. So, no, I can’t get all outraged about our failure to fund transit to the degree you might consider appropriate. We DID give a specific new revenue authority to be used for transit to local governments last session; governor vetoed it.