Send comments, submissions or what have you to:
editor.norwestreview@gmail.com

Sunday, May 23, 2010

So Many Questions; So Few Answers

Whatcom county's ethics code prohibits its elected officials from engaging in certain activities.

You might think this would prevent special interests from installing a lobbyist on the county council.

Unfortunately, you'd be so very wrong.

While the ethics code prohibits a county official from using their position to secure privileges or exemptions for themselves or others,  on at least a dozen occasions, according to recent public disclosures, Sam Crawford apparently has tried. 

It's his business, you know!

The ethics code prohibits county officials receiving compensation in any matter connected with their service.  Nonetheless Sam Crawford somehow makes a living doing just that.

The ethics code prohibits any county official from engaging in business or  a profession that might have them disclose information acquired through their privileged position. 

Yet Sam Crawford's provides just this sort of information to his clients, notwithstanding the code's clear requirement to avoid circumstances where that could even possibly happen.

So you might ask yourself, how does he sit in council chambers, executive sessions, even at public council meetings, tapping out messages on his cell phone and receiving instructions from his clients and their attorneys?

It might make you wonder to see him stroll out into the public during and after council meetings and even sit with attorneys and parties suing the county. 

As council members and planning personnel have exclaimed to me, "I swear he's got Jack Swanson on speed dial!"  Makes you wonder if Belcher-Swanson has Crawford on retainer. (myself, I always suspected he was carrying water for Langabeer & Tull)

Would such things be those "separate financial relationships" the ethics code refers to? 

Would it matter if the compensation came from attorneys rather than the people who benefited from zoning changes, expanded UGA boundaries, larger LAMIRDs, shoreline exemptions, boundary line adjustments, variances and assistance in avoiding compliance orders.

I guess since attorneys benefit whatever the outcome, a lawyer would probably argue, if they made payments to, say, a consulting firm, it wouldn't need to be disclosed? That would be a really separate financial relationship!

Hey, people pay lobbyists all the time to lobby the state or congress.  Would we object to congressmen or state legislators being lobbyists?

But according to the ethics code, in matters that even indirectly affect the county, elected officials may not participate in reaching decisions in which they have or may receive compensation from anyone who will benefit from the outcome of the matter, even if the compensation is as little as a $100, without fully disclosing the same.

Now would a payment from a lawfirm that went into an undisclosed bank account of a consulting firm owned by an elected official, with just one "consultant" (who just happened to be the elected official), need to be disclosed? 

If an elected official wouldn't disclose payments into that bank account, would it be consistent with the county ethic code's requirement to"fully disclose" their affairs?  (Now don't waste any time asking the county prosecutor, ethics isn't his department)

This is an interesting question, you see, because Sam Crawford does his lobbying and consulting under the fictitious name, Emerald Lake Consulting.  It's Sam's alter ego.

And if folks send money to Emerald Lake Consulting, Sam probably thinks he doesn't even have to mention it, and can get round that "fully disclosing" requirement. 

And if no one person (or firm) gives him more than $10,000 per year, he doesn't have to report it to the state either. 

And since the bank account isn't in his name, he doesn't have to report how much is in it, no matter what.  (hey, politicians pay attorneys big money to come up with these loopholes)

Now when this all started, Sam must have been a little flustered, because at first he said he understood that, "your underlying concerns are reasonable as a voting citizen" regarding his, "nearly eight years of land-use application involvement."

Sam said, "I am and will remain very receptive and openly discuss any aspect of my business in a general nature that does not compromise my client's appropriate entitlement to privacy"

But then the attorneys must have gotten him by the scruff of the neck and taken him to the woodshed, because, when asked to come out from behind the technicalities and share how much money he has received as a consultant since gaining office, Sam had nothing to say.  And it has been "Silent Sam" ever since.

Even when it was proposed he keep his clients completely secret, and just disclose the payments he has received, his response has been continued silence. 

It seems a little in-genuine to hide behind his clients' privacy, and then, in response to a public disclosure request, supply a list of cases he has lobbied for the last 18 months; like no one could associate their numbers with his clients' names.

It's time Crawford developed at least a rudimentary respect for the ethics code and explained his relationships or recused himself from deliberations where he has a prima facie conflict.  He needs to be challenged on the record.

If he wants to be a lobbyist for these folks, go sit out in front and enjoy your three minutes to speak.

Sam Crawford has put himself in a position unlike any other member of the council.  He has chosen a profession that places him in a situation that, if it isn't categorically prohibited by the ethics code, demands extraordinary transparency.  But he resists requests to disclose any details of his financial dealings.

Given his chosen career, it is almost impossible for him to participate in decisions affecting land use planning, and inappropriate to lobby Planning & Development Services.

For as much as he would like to hide the connection, all his lobbying for developers and special interests from his seat on the council, and his intercession for favors and exemptions at the planning department, drives business to Emerald Lake Consulting.

And even though he doesn't disclose how much he pays himself out of Emerald Lake Consulting, it is a significant part of his income.

Perhaps in Sam's mind, what's good for Emerald Lake Consulting's good for Whatcom county. But I don't think the ethics code was written with that outlook however.

It is the right of the voters of Whatcom county to elect whomever they wish.  But no one should expect that right to exempt their favored representative from the ethical requirements of office. 

The governing principle of the ethics code is to charge all elected officials of Whatcom County with a duty to hold themselves fully accountable to the highest ethical, professional and legal standards, at all times, while holding office and conducting the public’s business.

So Tuesday, when Sam continues lobbying to extend the growth boundaries out to Smith Road for the folks at CAITAC, and he pushes some convoluted argument that wherever water lines now run, we should allow developers to sprawl out to their hearts' content, let's see if anyone on the council asks him if has gotten a hundred bucks (or might in the future) from someone who will benefit from these outcomes ...  maybe their lawyers ... or maybe from Emerald Lake Consulting.

And if any have the courage, isn't it about time to investigate council-member Crawford to determine if he's engaged in activities prohibited by the ethics code?

In particular, if he has participated in quasi-judicial proceedings without disclosing the substance of ex-parte communications with outside attorneys; pursued exemptions from compliance orders and shoreline regulations for clients; sought or received compensation in matters related to his official position; and if he is engaged in a business that might, or has had him disclose information gained in his privileged capacity.

Unlikely the new majority would take umbrage at one of their own shilling for the developers and making a buck in the two oldest professions around.

Sam Crawford should realize, given his profession, the burden's on him to put these questions to rest.

Until we start getting some answers, on matters of growth management and planning, it would be best he remain, Silent Sam.