New found; well it wasn't so significant a topic before. The previous council majority was largely lambasted for putting the public interest before the interests of land speculators, and the general welfare ahead of the desires of particular individuals.
But now that we've seen just how overreaching is the greed of the self interested, and how unembarrassed these self-described "conservatives" are to take money from special interests and, without pause or hesitation, do their bidding, I have a question.
Have you ever heard of Emerald Lake Consulting?
Emerald Lake Consulting is a land-use consulting business, that Sam Crawford operates from his home near Toad Lake, just outside Bellingham. As such it caters to the needs of the real estate and development industry.
Crawford started the business in 2007. Before that, in addition to his duties as a county council member, he was the business manager of Bruce Ayer's little enterprise, Ayer's Consulting LLC, where he learned the curious trade in information and access.
For those who've forgotten, Ayers enjoyed a controversial career on the Bellingham city council before being replaced by Barbara Ryan. The firm specialized in consulting on development projects and permitting.
Crawford appears to have learned the craft well enough to carry on alone; well, sort of alone.
Now maybe you are asking yourself, how can someone advertising for clients who need permits, or zoning changes, or other special considerations to get their development projects approved, sit on the council and vote on budgets, zoning questions or ordinances without appearing unfair to his clients' opponents? And that is a good question. So good, it literally answers itself.
And questionable as it was that he and Ayers, county and city councilmen respectively, would have such a business; isn't it even stranger that Crawford would continue the ruse on his own, still remaining on the county council?
Our laws would seem to discourage such an undertaking, where they require no official engage in business or professional activity that might tempt them to disclose confidential information acquired in their official position.
The code is pretty emphatic. No elected official shall disclose any confidential information acquired during their term of office, or use such knowledge to advance theirs or any other's financial interest.
Wasn't there a request recently for Crawford to disclose his e-mail and text correspondence? Has he responded? Or is he fighting that?
One friend recently remarked, he'd been to Planning & Development Services (you gotta love that name) three times, and twice he ran into Crawford at the counter. But certainly, the chairman of the county council inquiring on your behalf is no special advantage in getting your interests served.
Perhaps Crawford just doesn't understand the county code where it prohibits county officials using their position to secure special privileges or exemptions. Or that restriction on council members interfering in the executive branch. (Though I doubt Pete would complain. They're both just serving the public as best they can!)
I am surprised Crawford has seldom, if ever, recused himself from a vote; even though the county code requires a council member with a private interest in any law or policy proposed or pending not vote in the matter. I can not imagine that being paid by the beneficiaries of the outcome is somehow exempted. But then, the law is weak. It relies on the integrity of the individual.
And where the county code generally prohibits any official receiving compensation in connection with a matter related to the official’s service, I just assume Crawford believes when he's out at the planning department, helping his clients, it's an unofficial visit. But it could be he feels enforcement of the protections in place are unrelated to his service with the county.
But even more, I am wondering why it isn't possible to find a detailed report of the payments Crawford receives through this front company. I certainly respect his interest in not embarrassing his clients, who are just trying to get a little edge.
I wonder, because the Revised Code of Washington seems pretty clear in stating no payment shall be made to, or accepted by, any person required to report under public disclosure law directly or indirectly, in a fictitious name, anonymously, or by one person through an agent, relative, or other person to conceal the identity of the source of the payment.
So how do people make payments to Emerald Lake Consulting, and how does Crawford take money out of his firm, without disclosing the same?
It seems that the laws intend that Crawford should be a lot more up front on this stuff. I wonder why his rock-ribbed Republican friends haven't complained? Well, maybe respect for the law isn't one of those "conservative" principles any more.
