Search Results for: ’

The story of a Vancouver couple, Frank and Karen Wastradowski, who had racist graffiti keyed into their car after placing a Barack Obama yard sign in their yard, has drawn a full article from The Columbian.

The graffiti has generated an outcry among several community leaders, who set up a fund this week to defray Wastradowski’s cleanup expenses. Several officials, including Tim Probst, a candidate for representative for the 17th District, have pledged monetary support.

“If someone scratches ‘white power’ on a car, it’s important that we send a message as a whole that our community doesn’t accept racism,” Probst said.

Chris Bassett, the former vice chairman of the Clark County Democratic Party, started the fund after reading media reports on the incident. Outraged, he decided to do something. So he sent e-mails to other political activists, including Probst, seeking contributions.

Bassett said the fund isn’t intended to be a partisan statement (although all those involved are Democrats), but a stance against those who threaten freedom of speech and perpetuate racism.

“Obviously, there is an element in Clark County that feels it’s OK to do these things,” Bassett said. “(The Wastradowskis) were just expressing themselves,” and the vandals were trying to intimidate them into silence. “And that’s very troubling.”

It’s easy to be cynical in this day and age, and I’m probably as cynical as one can get, but the response that has been formulated to this cowardly little bit of vandalism is motivated by a sincere desire to show that normal people don’t find this sort of stuff acceptable. Plus there’s no good reason this couple should bear the financial cost of removing hate graffiti from their sedan for supporting the nominee of a major party, or any candidate for that matter.

I don’t want to invade the Wastradowski’s privacy any more than it has been already, but I’ve heard from several people, including a couple of elected officials, that they are well-respected members of the community. (And let’s remember, before anyone starts claiming that the response to this is motivated only by partisanship, that Frank Wastradowski used to be the campaign treasurer for former state Sen. Don Carlson, R-Vancouver.)

Normal people consider it their Constitutional right to pick and choose whom to support, and they really shouldn’t have to worry about costly repairs to their property for simply putting a placard in their yard.

An account called the “Victims of Racial Vandalism Fund” has been set up at IQ Credit Union in Clark County. You can find their locations here. At this writing we are waiting for the Pay Pal account to go live, and I will update as soon as I receive word it’s working.

UPDATE– Click on the Pay Pal button below if you wish to donate to the “Victims of Racial Vandalism Fund.” Be sure to hit “update total” at Pay Pal if you are paying by credit card (rather than logging in) so that you don’t have to keep re-doing it, like I did. The Pay Pal account’s email address is called “ccagainstvandalism” as I guess it had to be a shorter name.

And I know a lot of folks might be kind of tapped out because it’s an election year (not to mention the tough economy) so rest assured small donations very much matter in this case. It will show how many folks want to register their disgust with this kind of petty and hateful action. Wouldn’t it be great if 50 or 100 people threw in five or ten bucks?

Our plan at this point is any funds that might be raised in excess of that needed to help get the Wastradowski’s on the road without a racism-mobile will be kept in the fund until after the election and then donated to a charity agreed to by the Wastradowski’s. This is an ad-hoc group, so it’s not like we’re having board meetings or anything.

Here’s the Pay Pal button:

It’s a Drinking Liberally double header for me tonight as the Columbia City chapter meets from 6PM to 8PM at the Columbia City Theater, 4916 Rainier AVE S. (next door to Tutta Bella’s), followed by the Seattle chapter which meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM onward at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Stop on by for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

I received a news release this morning announcing that King County Executive Ron Sims had endorsed Dr. ChangMook Sohn for State Treasurer… which I suppose would be a significant coup for Sohn in this very low profile statewide race, if not for the second paragraph:

“Dr. Sohn has the experience to be State Treasurer: he’s been the state’s top economist for more than two decades; he’s founded a bank; and he’s taught economics at two state universities,” said Sims, who also endorsed Seattle legislator Jim McIntire for the post.

Sims has endorsed both McIntire and Sohn? Isn’t that kinda like buttering your margarine?

One more sign of the favorable political climate facing Democrats this cycle is the sudden reversal of Republicans’ formerly unassailable fundraising advantage in districts nationwide. And we’re not just seeing the inevitable impact of Democratic incumbency here; according to an analysis released today by CQ, of the best-funded House challengers this cycle (as measured by cash on hand), nine of the ten top spots are held by Democrats.

And who should we find near the top of the list, in position number three?

3. Darcy Burner, Democrat, Washington’s 8th ($1.2 million). Burner, who was formerly employed by Microsoft, is taking on two-term Rep. Reichert ($916,000) in a suburban Seattle district in which she came within three percentage points of unseating the congressman in 2006. Burner’s challenge is one reason why Reichert is among the most vulnerable Republican incumbents; so too is the likelihood that his district will back Barack Obama over John McCain for president. CQ Politics Race Rating: No Clear Favorite.

Burner is also one of the few challengers on the list with a substantial cash on hand advantage over the incumbent… a margin that I expect to substantially widen at the end of this month’s pre-primary reporting period. And as CQ notes, this isn’t the only advantage Burner is likely to have come November:

Some of these Democratic challengers may also benefit from added assistance from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of House Democrats that has tens of millions of dollars more than its partisan counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee, to spend on television ads and other campaign communications.

The DCCC has already booked a million dollars worth of TV ads in WA-08 this fall. No word yet of an NRCC ad buy on Reichert’s behalf.

Obviously, Burner’s hard fought fundraising advantage puts her in a better position to win this November than she was heading into the 2006 election, but it also tells us a bit about the relative support of the two candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, Burner and Reichert have raised similar amounts in-district and in-state, but the real disparity comes when looking at individual vs PAC contributions. Thus far Burner has raised 84% of her funds from individual contributors, a constituency that provides only 59% of Reichert’s funds. That’s a huge difference, and a disparity that’s likely to grow between now and November.

It’s gonna be a nail-biter, but if I were Reichert I’d be pretty damn worried.

Over the weekend we’ve been following a story here in Clark County about a local couple who appear to be the target of racist vandalism simply because they dared to put a Barack Obama yard sign in front of their home. The Columbian ran a small item on Friday night:

Someone scratched the words “White Power” on a car belonging to a Vancouver family who recently posted an “Elect Obama” sign in their front yard.

On Sunday, Frank Wastradowski, who lives northeast of Southwest Washington Medical Center, noticed the vandalism on the side of his wife’s 1993 Plymouth. The letters, likely scratched with a key, were about 8 inches tall.

“It’s a hate crime and it’s time we get past racism,” he said.

Wastradowski said he won’t take the sign down, adding, “That’s my freedom of speech.”

Now KPTV-12 in Portland has a story up about the incident, and we learn that the words “I’m gay” were also scratched into the car. Since the KPTV story features Karen Wastradowski, Frank’s wife, one can only conclude that the vandals were quite intent on displaying their vast stupidity for the world to see.

There are a couple of things worth noting here. Yes, Clark County has its share of unrepentant bigots. Earlier this year the son of a Battle Ground city council member was charged with cyberstalking over virulently racist emails sent to a black council member and other community members. So while vandalism is not exactly an unusual thing during the summer months, it’s also not acceptable to just shrug off racist defacement of private property as “just kids being kids.” They learned it somewhere.

A small ad-hoc group of us here is working on setting up a donation fund for the Wastradowski’s so they don’t have to drive around in a car that says “White Power” on it. My fellow blogger Aneurin at Politics is a Blood Sport has been following the story here and here. Aneurin has talked to Frank Wastradowski, and unsurprisingly the couple did not have full coverage on the car (nothing against 1993 sedans, of course.) We’re working on some details about how to set the fund up and to do it in a way that will aid the Wastradowskis rather than just make a partisan statement.

In a larger sense, if someone can’t place a yard sign for a major party candidate in front of their home without this sort of thing happening, we don’t really have much of a democracy. At this point we are hoping some local Republicans will also come forward and denounce this attack and perhaps throw in a small donation as well.

As things progress I’ll keep HA readers up to date. It might be easy to ignore a relatively small and stupid act of vandalism, but the Wastradowski’s need to know that the community won’t tolerate this sort of thing and will take positive actions to counteract it.

And one other thing, which is in the “gee, that’s kind of curious” file, is that Frank Wastradowski used to be the campaign treasurer for former state Senator Don Carlson, R-Vancouver. There’s no way to know if the vandals knew that, unless someone is caught, but it’s still pretty ironic.

Sure, the guy is nuts, but this is what inevitably comes from violent, eliminationist rhetoric:

The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday’s mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.

Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he described his feelings and why he committed the shooting, Owen said.

Adkisson said he was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job and how much he hated the liberal movement, Owen said.

Adkisson hated liberals… and so he shot up a Unitarian church. During a children’s play.

Committing suicide by going on a shooting rampage in a Unitarian church is like shooting fish in a barrel and expecting the fish to shoot back. The Unitarians I’ve known are about the most peaceful and harmless folks I’ve ever met; indeed, the only church less likely for Adkisson to find armed resistance would have been a Friends meeting house. (And even then, only maybe.)

So of course this guy was crazy. Sane people don’t go on shooting rampages.

But hatred like his doesn’t grow in a vacuum; it is nurtured, shaped and focused by hate-mongers like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, who cheer at the notion of killing a few liberals to keep us in line, or who have made careers out of vilifying the political opposition as terrorists or traitors or worse. No, neither Coulter nor O’Reilly nor any of their cohorts pulled the trigger, but they surely understood that their words might feed the insanity of someone who could. If these are the mullahs of the extremist right, then the liberal-hating homicidal Adkisson is a suicide bomber of their own creation.

Say what you want about the aggressive rhetoric of netroots activists like me, but we don’t advocate violence, because we understand that ultimately, the sole purpose of advocacy is to incite action.

UPDATE:
Sam Smith at Scholars and Rogues weighs in:

Jim Adkisson was an unbalanced man, and perhaps it was only a matter of time before he snapped. But two questions to ponder: first, who created the conditions that hastened the snap? And second, when the train jumped the tracks, who created the bogeyman that the diseased brain latched onto as the cause of all the pain?

[Read more…]

Former Washington State Supreme Court justices Faith Ireland and Robert Utter have notified Attorney General Rob McKenna and county prosecutors that they intend to file suit against the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) and the Master Builders Association alleging massive public disclosure violations, unless prosecutors take action within 45 days. From a press release issued this morning by their attorneys:

A secret campaign war chest created by leaders of a statewide builder’s association to influence this fall’s gubernatorial election has been openly challenged by a group that includes two prestigious former State Supreme Court justices: Robert Utter and Faith Ireland.

The amount of money amassed by the BIAW has been estimated at upwards of $3.5 million. Contrary to state law, the BIAW and the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County (MBA) are not registered as a Political Committees, nor have they publicly disclosed the sources of their campaign money.

[…] Former Justice Faith Ireland supports the effort to force transparency in the electoral process. “Washington has good public disclosure laws and when they are enforced, we will have a transparent, accountable political process. Without enforcement, sneak tactics and last minute ambush can unfairly influence the outcome of important races,” Ireland stated.

Former Justice Robert Utter agrees. “I believe the actions of the BIAW violate the letter and spirit of the public disclosure law in this campaign season and in past seasons as well. The law provides for a process to test these concerns. I look forward to a successful determination of the issues.”

I’ve only quickly skimmed the Notice of Intent to Sue, but the arguments look pretty compelling and well supported, and it’s hard to believe a couple of former Supreme Court justices would get behind such a suit if they weren’t pretty damn confident about the legal underpinnings.

Attorney Knoll Lowney calls the BIAW’s actions perhaps “the most significant violation of campaign finance laws in state history,” and the consequences could end up being much, much greater than just a PDC fine. Almost as an afterthought the press release mentions another pending case:

In a related matter, a class action suit (RE Sources v. BIAW) is pending in Thurston County. That lawsuit, filed by BIAW trust beneficiaries, alleges that BIAW funneled trust money that was earmarked for marketing and promoting worker safety into their political activities. That class action seeks accounting, preservation and restoration of the BIAW trust fund. Questions relating to this action may also be answered at the press conference.

If successful, this suit could force the BIAW to pay back into the trust fund the millions of dollars it has illegally spent on political campaigns over the years, essentially bankrupting the association. Gee, I sure hope our state’s radio and TV stations are getting cash up front for all those lying BIAW ads.

Goldy was joined in political punditry by a diverse panel: Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, initiative specialist Laura McClintock of McClintock Consulting, the newest Seattle Weekly online contributor (and former Sound Politics front-pager) Don Ward, and Eat the State, KEXP and occasional HorsesAss contributor Geov Parrish.

The conversation begins with a Netroots Nation debriefing. Goldy observes that Darcy Burner was welcomed to Austin as a veritable rock star. Do voters in the eighth notice? Should they? The topic turns to Tim Eyman, his so-called anti-congestion initiative, and the media’s failures to scrutinize his initiatives and claims.

The panel then takes a bite out of Attorney General Rob McKenna. Are his PSAs being used as a campaign tool in violation of the law? Are the words followed up by actions? The podcast closes with a round of speculations about vice presidential running mates.

The show is 52:01, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_july_22_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

With a Sound Transit ballot measure looking more and more likely, Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels fires a preemptive shot at the Master Of Asphalt, Kemper Freeman Jr.:

We know who is behind the curtain of the Eastside Transportation Association – the same people whose only answer to the problems of climate pollution and congestion are more freeways, more traffic, and more frustration. Under Sound Transit’s new proposal, light rail would be extended to Bellevue, as well as Lynnwood and Federal Way. Those who are lining up against this common-sense measure are stuck in their own personal Oz, a place where our most pressing challenges can be wished away by laying more asphalt. This November, we look forward to presenting our bus, commuter and light rail solution – a way forward that will cost the average driver the equivalent of one tank of gas a year. Because we know building a better future takes more than clicking your heels and hoping our gridlock will go away.

“Roads and Transit” was a much easier target, and Kemper’s radio ads raised the “tax” argument pretty effectively. But it’s 2008, and gas is even more expensive than it was last year. This time, voter turnout will be huge. This time, the “pro” campaign will be smaller, leaner, and tougher. This press release is just a first shot.

When you’re the 419th 401st most powerful member of the House of Representatives, chances at the national limelight are few and far between. You must carefully weigh which, of the many pressing issues facing the body politic, you can expend your limited political capital advocating for. You don’t get many chances to shine; you gotta make ’em count.

So it’s sorta fascinating, in a gruesome car wreck kind of way, to see Rep. Dave Reichert (“Conscience Driven Independent™”-WA) in the pages of The Hill’s Congress Blog on Friday, taking a bold stance against the impeachment of President Bush:

As one of the nine Republicans crossing party lines yesterday on the vote moving Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, I cast my vote not to hold hearings, but to move the bill off the House Floor so the House could focus on more important issues….

There are less than 30 legislative days left in the Congressional calendar. And this is what we are voting on? No wonder the country has lost faith in Congress. There are so many things that we need to take action on and impeachment votes that are guaranteed not to pass is not one of them.

Now, it’s pretty hard to argue with the assertion that members of the House of Representatives should, you know, do stuff. Although a reasonable observer might add that, with fewer than 30 legislative days left in his fourth year of Congressional service, Sheriff Dave has thus selected as good a time as any to start. Had he actually started to do anything.

Plus, to be sure, no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors the Bush cabal has committed — and they are undoubtably legion — genuine impeachment, based on a full accounting of those crimes, at this point isn’t even physically possible; Republicans and Democrats alike have so run the clock out on Bush’s second term without mounting any sort of serious investigation of their crimes that at this point none could be conducted in time. Politically, it’s preposterous to think it could or would happen anyway. Neither party’s leadership is interested in turning over that rock.

So why is Reichert wasting his time writing about it?

More to the point, why is Reichert wasting his miniscule influence defending a widely reviled administration he’s supposed to be independent of? (Except for fundraisers.) (And his voting record.) And why does he think it’s a waste of time to investigate some of the crimes that have helped create those crises (illegal wars, soaring energy costs, an economy crippled by deregulated and corrupt financial dealings) he’s failed to help address for four years?

And if crimes leading to multiple crises crippling the country aren’t worth tying up the House’s time, why did his party think impeachment over lying about a blow job was worth bringing Congress to a full stop for over a year?

You’d almost think Reichert was using a meaningless vote to try to score exactly the sort of cheap political points he was allegedly deploring, on behalf of an administration he is allegedly independent of. But then, that’s exactly the sort of expediency-driven political hackery we’ve come to expect from the Seattle Times’ favorite “moderate.”

I get email:

For someone who doesn’t want to be tied to Bush, Rossi is doing a shitty job of defense. Sending out press releases talking about the Governor talking about how you named your dog after Bush?!?! Are you fucking serious?

The emailer is referring to a press release sent by the Rossi campaign in response to this quote by Gregoire:

“In fact, he is so enamored with George W. Bush he has named his dog [Dubya]. I feel sorry for the dog.”

When Rossi should be trying his best to show voters that he’s not in league with Mr. 28 Percent, this release shows he’s not taking taking that advice. What a bunch of whiners.

And this photo above, well… let’s just say that campaigns pay people 4k a month to keep them from happening.

SurveyUSA has come out with their July poll in the Washington state gubernatorial contest. The poll shows Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) leading challenger Dino Rossi (GOP-Party) 49% to 46%. The poll of 666 people was taken from July 13th to July 15th.

The new poll follows the release of two other polls within the last week. A few days ago, Moore Information released a poll in this race that was taken from July 9 to July 10. It showed Gregoire and Rossi tied at 45%. The Moore Information poll was paid for by the Rossi campaign.

Last Friday, a poll was released by Rasmussen Reports, showing Gregoire leading Rossi, 49% to 43%. That poll was taken on July 9th. Gregoire led Rossi by single digit margins in all three June polls, including last month’s SurveyUSA poll that gave Gregoire a +3% advantage.

I’ll offer two Monte Carlo analyses using the new poll. First is an analysis of the poll numbers in the new SurveyUSA in order to estimate the probability that Gregoire (and Rossi) would win an election held right now. I simulated a million gubernatorial elections of 666 voters each, where each voter had a 49% chance of voting for Gregoire, a 46% chance of voting for Rossi and a 5% chance of voting for neither.

Gregoire won 780,736 of the simulated elections and Rossi won 11,542 times. This suggests that, in an election now, Gregoire would have a 79% probability of winning and Rossi would have a 21% probability of winning. A statistician would point out that Gregoire’s lead in this poll is within the margin of error (i.e. her probability of winning is less than 95%).

Here is a plot showing the distribution of votes in the million elections (blue bars are wins for Gregoire and red bars are Rossi wins):

The second analysis combines the polls from Rasmussen Reports, Moore Information, and SurveyUSA. Since the combined responses were all taken within one week, from July 9th through the 15th, we could look at the combined polls as the best evidence available for who would win the election now.

The combined polls yield a pool of 1,565 polled people, of whom 751 (48.0%) voted for Gregoire, 703 (44.9%) who voted for Rossi, and 111 (7.1%) who voted for neither. Again, I simulate 1,000,000 elections, this time with 1,565 people.

Gregoire won 893,646 of the simulated elections and Rossi won 101,700 times. The results suggest that, if an election were held now, Gregoire would win with an 89.9% probability, and Rossi would win with a 10.2% probability.

Here is a plot showing the distribution of votes in the million elections for the combined polls:

SurveyUSA also polled for the presidential election in Washington state. Sen. Barack Obama (D) leads Sen. John McCain (R) 55% to 39%. Obama’s lead is well outside the 3.9% margin of error for the poll.

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

This week the panel was briefly joined by Democratic Candidate for Washington State Attorney General and current Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg, who discusses Sound Transit’s next moves and that Washington State is second worst in the nation for consumer fraud. Next Goldy seeks free legal advice from John on whether current Attorney General Rob McKenna has thrown our primary election into chaos through incompetence.

The discussion then gets all touchy-feely over the Doug Sutherland sexual harassment scandal and contemplates Peter Goldmark as Sutherland’s replacement. The local political races add a wonky finish to the podcast.

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, John Ladenburg, The Stranger’s Erica C. Barnett, HorsesAss blogger Will, and Eat the State, KEXP and occasional HorsesAss contributor Geov Parrish.

The show is 50:12, and is available here as an MP3:

[Audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_july_15_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

If a statewide elected official were to humiliate a young female employee in front of her coworkers and supervisors by inappropriately touching her—twice—while lewdly remarking on her breasts, and ultimately leading to her resignation… you’d think that might generate a few headlines from a local press corps proven oh so sensitive on matters of perceived personal offense. But apparently, not if that elected official is a likable, grandfatherly type, like Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland.

The incident dates back almost three and a half years, and while hushed whispers have been making the rounds for nearly as long, it was not until March of 2008 that the allegation was substantiated through a public records request that produced a 62-page document detailing a number of eyewitness accounts. (The name of the victim is redacted throughout.) Yet even with this document in hand, multiple news organizations have declined to inform voters of an undisputed incident that portrays a shocking lapse of judgment on the part of Commissioner Sutherland, a management style disruptive to the operations of his agency, and a clear violation of his department’s anti-harassment policies, if not the law itself.

On January 15, 2005, a young, female employee, recently hired by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), was introduced to Commissioner Sutherland at a state meeting in Pacific, WA. Following is a description of the initial encounter, as transcribed from the woman’s handwritten notes:

Jon introduces me to the commissioner. “Doug, this is [REDACTED], the new public use forester.”
I shake his hand. [REDACTED] great to meet you.”
We resume to positions in tight circle.
Commissioner reaches across circle (& Doug M.) w/ his hand & grabs my left shoulder. Feels it, then twists me around so that my back is facing him & he holds me w/ one hand & feels my back (open palmed) from my neck down to my waist, shoulders, etc. Says something about “just looking.”
I am incredulous & half-smiling w/lack of reaction & blush v. red.
Doug Mc. (I made eye contact wi/ him @ some point during the inappropriate touching) & he made a comment like “We hire them strong.” or “Strong back.”
When commissioner returned to his position in the circle he said “Could have felt… up front” or “could have felt the other side”
“Wouldn’t be right.”

No, it wouldn’t have been right for the then 68-year-old Sutherland to feel this young woman’s breasts, but then, in the unanimous opinion of those who witnessed his actions, it clearly wasn’t right for him to rub her neck, shoulder, back and waist either. And for those who might question the recall of a young woman who at times appears teetering on the edge of shock, her contemporaneous notes are not only corroborated by various eyewitnesses, but at times elaborated on in ways that make Sutherland’s behavior appear all the more more inexcusable.

For example, the “Doug M.” in the transcript above is Doug McClelland, a division head at DNR, and a longtime aide to Sutherland. In a January 18 memo, McClelland provides a similar description of that first encounter:

Doug said hi to all and when I got to introducing [REDACTED] he put his arm around her and rubbed the back of her jacket a few times. I said she is strong because it seemed uncomfortable in what he was doing. Doug said something like: “she has other nice parts too!” All heard it and [REDACTED] was obviously embarrassed.

McClelland provides additional details in handwritten notes that appear to have been taken during an oral interview:

Shook Jesse’s hand, then got to [REDACTED], instead of shaking hand he turned her slightly and ran his hand all over back.

I was uncomfortable, & made joke: “And she’s quite strong too.”

Doug turned her to front: “And she has some other great parts also.”

[REDACTED] was very embarrassed. Taken aback.

Sure, McClelland’s two accounts differ slightly, and “could have felt the other side” and “she has other nice parts too” are two entirely different phrases, but regardless of the discrepancies both he and the victim describe the same basic event: Sutherland grabbed the young woman, turned her around, rubbed her back, and then made a suggestive comment about her breasts. And McClelland’s added description of Sutherland turning the young woman first to the back, and then to the front, not only clarifies that McClelland understood the offending remark to be a reference to the woman’s breasts, it also presents a clear visual image of Sutherland physically manipulating the victim as if she were an object. And a sexual object at that.

Multiple accounts have Sutherland cordially shaking hands with everyone in the circle, while the victim was “singled out” according to McClelland, because she was a “bright, smiling female,” and the only woman in the small group. Indeed, even Sutherland confirms the victim’s account, writing in a postmortem Q&A:

“The incident, as [REDACTED] describes it, is essentially what happened. The disconnect is in how she felt and what my intent was.”

But if there was a “disconnect” it was purely Sutherland’s, as all the witnesses appeared uniformly shocked and appalled at the Commissioner’s inappropriate behavior. In his January 18 memo, McClelland describes a brief conversation with Jon Byerly, the young woman’s immediate supervisor:

At the next break I had a chance to let Jon know that his employee [REDACTED] was uncomfortable from her encounter with Doug S. and Jon said “I thought his actions were very unprofessional and couldn’t believe he had acted that way.” I agreed with Jon’s observation.

Later that evening, Byerly called the woman at home to express his shock and support. From her handwritten notes:

Very upset following my departure. Spoke to my friend(s) & family for support.
Jon called @ 7:15 pm.
He says that he is shocked by what occurred.
References strict standards that we must abide by when it comes to harassment, but that the commissioner answers to the public.
He says that he’s embarrassed.

And again from the victim’s notes (and later corroborated by McClelland), even Sutherland acknowledged at the time that his actions had caused the young woman distress:

When the commissioner resumed his “position” in the circle he looked at me & said “Oh look, I’ve embarrassed her.”

Embarrassed her, yes. And much, much more than that, for as the documents show, this incident (and those that followed) caused the young woman such distress, that it eventually led to her resignation a few weeks later… a cause and effect that once again, even Sutherland ultimately acknowledges:

“I’m sure this incident contributed to her feelings about leaving and I’m really sorry for that.”

At this point I imagine that there are some who might seek to dismiss Sutherland’s actions as little more than an overly-friendly massage and an off-color remark, and the victim’s resignation as an unfortunate overreaction. (Is that why our male dominated press corps seems so uninterested?) But I urge you to try to put yourselves in the shoes of a young woman in a new job, forced to endure a very public humiliation at the wandering hands of a man, 45 years her senior, who is not only her boss’s boss, but a prominent, statewide elected official. DNR has and enforces anti-harassment policies specifically designed to prevent incidents like this and the hostile work environment it obviously created.

I also urge you to consider that while the facts in this case are clearly established, a typed transcript alone cannot possibly convey the full emotional impact of the events therein. For example, while the young woman clearly notes the waves of anger washing over her just minutes after the incident, her clipped phrasing contains little of the emotion she attempts to describe.

Doug Mc. said “He oftentimes says the wrong thing.”
I said “That was not okay. That was not right.”
[…] I was very upset as I replayed the moment; (the commissioner’s action, & comment) in my head — w/ anger coming in waves. Realizing that what had just occurred was NOT right.
At one point wiped away tears.
Closed my eyes. Talked myself out of becoming more upset.

The added emphasis in her handwritten notes is much more revealing, but even that doesn’t do justice to the pain and confusion that ultimately led to her resignation just a few weeks later.

And compounding the injury was the insensitive manner in which the woman’s supervisor, Jon Byerly attempted to excuse Sutherland’s actions just minutes after the encounter. Indeed, the following transcript could be used in sexual harassment training sessions everywhere as a textbook example of exactly how not to deal with a sexual harassment complaint.

Jon came to “sit down next to his little lady.” He sat one seat away to my left. Chris M. still sitting to my right.
Before Jon said anything else he motioned to his shirt at the top of the neck.
I did not know what he was referencing & asked “What?”
He made the motion again & I said “My button?” and he said “Your button.”
I was shocked. Again blushed as I buttoned up the top button (not the neck snap) on my uniform. I was wearing my uniform shirt, loose gray slacks, tank beneath my uniform & a fleece long-sleeve zip up over top, along w/ a skarf around my neck. My shirt was not low & did not show excessive decolletage. I had buttened my shirt up to the same button for the previous 8 days of work & did not in an way feel as if my dress was inappropriate.
Jon then leaned over close & said “I want you to know that I noticed (that action/comment?) that occurred.”
I was taken aback about the shirt button & did not respond except to say “That was not right.”
Jon proceeded to lean very close in once again & tell me that the commissioner has a reputation of just being a regular guy & that he does not think before he speaks.”
I looked at Jon & said “There is no excuse.”
Jon said “I’m not trying to make an excuse for him”
I said “That was very inappropriate & very, very, bad.”
I began to get visibly upset but no tears but conveyed the seriousness of the situation.
Jon Stood up & said “We need to eat or we will insult them.”

Oh Jesus. I’m guessing had Byerly first consulted Human Resources before attempting to calm the woman, blame the victim would not have been their preferred response. And according to the notes from McClelland’s oral interview, he too felt Byerly’s incredibly ham-fisted and insensitive counseling was totally inappropriate.

Jon came up and told me he had spoke to [REDACTED] and used it as a teachable moment to button her shirt up.

[I] told him that wasn’t appropriate.

In [my] opinion, she was dressed professionally.

Five days later, the victim was “temporarily assigned” a new supervisor.

Imagine you are a young woman, excited to embark on your chosen career, only days on the job at DNR. Imagine you are surrounded by peers and supervisors at your first statewide meeting, about to be introduced to the Commissioner of Public Lands, a statewide elected official. And now imagine the 68-year-old Sutherland spins you around, fondles you, and dismisses you with a sexually suggestive comment… only to have your immediate supervisor imply that you somehow brought the harassment upon yourself. How could your day get any worse?

Jesse & I were standing near our “lunch seats” when the commissioner returned to that area, placed his right hand on the right side of my lower waist & ran his hand across my waist (would have been just above my belt) to the left side of my waist.

Oh. My. God.

He (Commissioner) asked if I would be working out of the Olympia office or the regional office. I told him that I would be focused in Elbe Hills, trying to get that off the ground.
I do not believe Jesse knew of this inappropriate touching.
I held onto my water bottle tightly in front of me & did not reach out to shake his hand.
The commissioner then said that he would like to come to Elbe to see our work & what we’ve been up to.
Doug McClelland flew across the room & began shaking the commissioner’s hand.

Flew across the room? Yeah, I bet he did.

Could Sutherland have been more clueless? Or was he really clueless at all? He’d already acknowledged that he’d “embarrassed her” with his first round of inappropriate touching; could he possibly have expected a second round would be any more welcome?

Jesse said “I notice things.” “And I notice you do too.”
Chris joined our stance but not our conversation somewhere in here.
I said something to the effect of “If you’re referencing what just happened that was not okay.”
I said “You can’t do that.” “It is 2005!” “You can’t touch my waist like that.”
Jesse said “He just touched your waist?”
I said “Yes.” Seething.
Jesse said “Hold on [REDACTED] we’ll talk about this later.” “Slow down.”
I was irate, esp. that it had occurred again.

Did she really misunderstand Sutherland’s intentions, as he contends, or were his intentions absolutely clear from the start? (Ironically, if Sutherland had any questions about what does or does not constitute sexual harassment, he could have always consulted his own daughter Karen, an employment and labor attorney who specializes in, you guessed it… sexual harassment suits.)

This was no minor incident, the victim’s complaint throwing DNR into a frenzy of damage control. Meetings were held, testimony taken, statements given, memos written, supervisors reassigned, counseling given, and reminders on appropriate workplace behavior sent department wide. According to notes from a January 24 meeting, it was determined that the incident was a violation of DNR policy, that disciplinary action was warranted, and that it was in fact sexual harassment… but that due to the fact that it was “isolated,” “not hostile,” and involved no “quid pro quo,” it did not rise to the level of “illegal” sexual harassment.

Well, maybe. I discussed the case with a former county prosecutor who insisted that had their executive been involved in an incident like this, they would have settled in a heartbeat rather than risk going to trial. Whatever. The victim never filed suit, so we’ll never know.

What we do know is that the shockingly inappropriate behavior of Commissioner Sutherland led directly to the resignation of a young female employee, and the disruption and distraction of a number of managers who otherwise might have carried out the actual business of DNR… you know, trivial things like preventing timber companies from clearcutting unstable slopes.

We also know that while Sutherland ultimately apologized to his victim, he was never subjected to the sort of disciplinary action a lower level manager would surely have faced for similar misconduct. What kind of discipline might Sutherland have expected had he not been the Commissioner himself?

Well, as it so happens a public record exists of a contemporaneous incident involving a DNR manager and a female subordinate:

On February 7, 2005, Appellant sent [COMPLAINANT] a joke to her work e-mail. The joke was a fake advertisement for a pill called “Fukitol,” which in part stated, “When life just blows … Fukitol!” The subject line of the e-mail read, “I think I already overdosed.” At the time, [COMPLAINANT] was undergoing therapy to alleviate stress she was experiencing at work, and she perceived the joke as an attempt by Appellant to make fun of her stress and communicate to her that that he could get away with whatever he wanted. The [COMPLAINANT] also found the joke “menacing,” and she forwarded a copy of the e-mail to Ms. Dzimble.

Although DNR ultimately concluded that the manager had not intended to create a hostile work environment, that was the result of his actions nonetheless, and disciplined him by temporarily reducing his salary two steps for a period of two months. The manager challenged the penalty, but the Washington Personnel Appeals Board rejected his appeal, concluding amongst other things:

… the issue here is not Appellant’s intent was when he sent [COMPLAINANT] the e-mail, but what impact the e-mail had on [COMPLAINANT] when she received it…

… Appellant’s conduct violated Respondent’s Harassment Prevention policy by creating an offensive and intimidating work environment…

… As a supervisor, Appellant is held to a higher standard of professionalism, accountability and judgment.

A higher standard, apparently, than the Commissioner himself.

If this was the penalty for emailing an offensive joke, just imagine the disciplinary action had this DNR manager inappropriately touched his subordinate while making a sexually suggestive comment. Well, you’ll have to imagine it, as Sutherland was subjected to no disciplinary action at all for just such an offense.

Then again, we wouldn’t expect the department he runs to be able to discipline Sutherland. No, as the victim’s supervisor Jon Byerly appropriately put it: “The Commissioner answers to the public.“ But you know, only if the public learns about the incident.

Which brings us back to my lede, and my utter surprise at the incomprehensible decision of multiple news organizations to refuse to run with what is clearly a compelling and relevant story. With all the petty reporting on ads and polls and fundraising that has dominated political coverage of late, why would a reporter or editor sit on such an explosive story for over four months?

Is it just another one of those ethically challenged “he said/she said” stories? No, it’s a “he said, he said, he said, she said story…” and they all said the same damn thing!

Could Sutherland’s actions reasonably be interpreted as professional, appropriate or excusable? The victim didn’t think so. Nor did her supervisor. Nor his. These aren’t mere allegations; HR made a determination of sexual harassment based on undisputed facts.

Is sexual harassment itself an illegitimate subject to be raised in a contest for Commissioner of Public Lands? The press had no qualms about reporting on sexual harassment allegations against Gov. Mike Lowry and Sen. Brock Adams… allegations that generated hundreds of headlines and ultimately drove both men from office. More recently, I didn’t see the news media holding back their coverage of state Rep. Jim Dunn, who was stripped of his committee assignments after making a single “inappropriate” remark to a woman at a legislative function.

“We want to have zero tolerance for our members for inappropriate comments,” said House Republican leader Richard DeBolt.

So we have zero tolerance for the indiscretions of a two-bit, part-time legislator, but the inappropriate behavior of a likable, grandfatherly, statewide elected official we just hush up?

Or are our media gatekeepers concerned that the story is somehow tainted because it was being shopped around by individuals who would like to see Sutherland defeated? (For the record, I received my copy of the documents from the same source the other news organizations received theirs.) No doubt the person who requested these public records is at least as partisan as I am… but that doesn’t make the facts of this story any less true.

Whatever his intent, Doug Sutherland sexually harassed a young female employee, creating a work environment so hostile that she quit a few weeks later. That is a fact. And it is a fact that voters have the right to know.