Is the Condon Administration feeling Trapped????

 

It certainly appears that way, not that I would try and trap anyone to get to the truth, but as you read this it sure makes one wonder if they are feeling trapped.

 

THE BATTLE CONTINUES!

 

Readers might recall that I have been making a concerted effort to obtain cell phone messages between the players in the Cotton/Straub and Lynden Smithson cases.

Here is a small portion of the background:

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/02/breaking-news-it-is-the-unions-fault/

https://examplepro.me/2016/02/27/prr-updatefeburary-26th-2016/

https://examplepro.me/2016/02/26/the-ongoing-city-council-inestigation/

 

 

For some Reason Terri Pfister seems quite reluctant to provide me with a list of City Employees who use cell phones which taxpayers like myself pay for. The reluctance to do so may well be this City Policy.

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/1def1aa7-b2a9-492f-b465-7032f64b6eba

 

As you can see from the policy in order for us to pay for city employee cell phones they are supposed to enter into a contract which provides the City with the authority to audit the private cell phones we pay for.

Here are a couple of things to take note of in the policy:

 

 

As you can see from the email string below, I am trying my best to remove the veil of secrecy in the Condon Administration, a battle I will continue.

 

 

I want to point out that I do copy the City Council with some of my efforts at transparency, and often request comment. There are some that are quite good at responding, and others not so much. One of the individuals that is pretty good about responding is Councilman Mike Fagan and although I don’t often agree with him so far he has been quite open with me, and that is a good sign!

 

 

 

County PRR Update!

 

I am still waiting to receive the response for the PRR I submitted to the County Prosecutor for all the documents in their posssesion regarding the Mel and Lydia Taylor Case.

 

 

On a side note, I have been asked to comment on the situation reported in the SR here;

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/may/03/director-of-police-volunteer-group-details-tense-m/

 

as they are aware that I have some inside stuff with respect to why Condon was PO regarding COPS. It goes far deeper than what was reported, but since Rachel Alexander has stated she will be doing a story on an aspect of the issue, I will let her go first.

 

 

I should note that during the Q&A Rachel, Mitch Ryals, and myself had with Justin Lundgren and Craig Meidl, I did confront Lundgren regarding his APPOINTMENT to the rank of Major, assuming Rachel has some of the info I have it could be an interesting story.

 

Going over the tape of the Q&A there is some funny stuff in there including a comment by Rachel that makes this song from my era run through my head every time I review it. J

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYJyVEUaC4

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

With the recent number of Officer Involved Shootings in Spokane I thought for sure the Spokesman Review, which has the largest circulation in the area, would do a story on the new Washington State Public Records Act Law relating to the public release of Body Camera Video. For some reason even though the new law has been brought to their attention a number of times, and it does have a direct effect on law enforcement transparency they have chosen not to cover it…so I will by hitting some of the “Highlights” of the new law.

 

Somewhat ironically on April Fool’s Day 2016 Governor Jay Inslee approved Engrossed House Bill 2362 which becomes effective June 9^th,2016.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/63f9477f-29d3-4aa1-adae-e510afcbdad1

 

The new law was heavily backed by Washington State Law Enforcement and Local Governments, as we break it down you will be able to see why. Keep in mind that Washington State DOES NOT have a law covering Law Enforcement use of Body Cameras and there has been political battle after battle trying to implement a Body Camera Law. This new law was a backdoor approach by law enforcement and local government to curtail transparency…and it will work, up until there is a court challenge to the Washington State Supreme Court.

 

This new law is in direct response to the answers the Washington State Attorney General gave to the questions I prepared for State Senator Andy Billig to present to him, and specifically this question and answer.

_________________________________________

4. What legal standards or rules of evidence establish the requirements for preservation of intercepted private conversations or video evidence making such evidence available in its original format for a citizen seeking damages under RCW 9.73.030?

Brief Answer:  In order to use a recording as evidence in a criminal or civil case, the recording would be subject to the same laws and rules governing all evidence, including the requirement that the chain of custody be established to prove no tampering has occurred. Record retention schedules would also govern how long a recording must be kept. Recordings and records about the recordings would be subject to discovery, as well as the Public Records Act and its exemptions. In establishing body camera systems, agencies should therefore give significant thought to how to categorize and store recordings.

Long Answer: 4. What legal standards or rules of evidence establish the requirements for preservation of intercepted private conversations or video evidence making such evidence available in its original format for a citizen seeking damages under RCW 9.73.030?

    The Privacy Act contains some provisions related to retention and disclosure of recordings covered by the Act. All communications recorded pursuant to the Privacy Act’s warrant exception in RCW 9.73.090(2) must be retained “for as long as any crime may be charged based on the events or communications or conversations recorded.”  Because most body camera videos would not likely be made pursuant to the warrant exception, however, this provision would rarely apply to such videos. Similarly, as to video recordings made by cameras mounted in police vehicles and corresponding audio recordings, it is a misdemeanor to “knowingly alter [], erase[], or wrongfully disclose[] any [such] recording in violation of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c)[.]”    RCW 9.73.080(2).

    That said, video recordings made by police body-mounted cameras would qualify as public records. As such, the recordings must be retained according to the public entity’s applicable record retention schedule. See Washington State Archives, Law Enforcement Records Retention Schedule (Jan. 2013) (Schedule), available at http://www.sos.wa.gov/_ assets/archives/RecordsManagement/Law_Enforcement_RRS_v6.%201_Jan_2013.pdf.[11] The retention schedule for law enforcement agencies addresses recordings from mobile units, which

[original page 11]

are retained according to whether the recording captures an incident likely to lead to prosecution or litigation. Schedule at 50. Recordings that do not capture such incidents must be retained for 90 days, while recordings capturing such incidents must be retained until the matter is resolved or until all appeals are exhausted. Schedule at 50.[12]

    Law enforcement agencies must also comply with the requirement that records relevant to litigation or reasonably anticipated litigation must be preserved until the litigation is complete. See, e.g., Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217-18 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Of course, to the extent that recordings become evidence in a criminal case, they should be treated according to the same safeguards that govern any other evidence in a criminal case.

    With regard to disclosure, recordings and records about recordings from police cameras are subject to both the Public Records Act and discovery. See generally Fisher Broadcasting–Seattle LLC v. City of Seattle, 180 Wn.2d 515, 326 P.3d 688 (2014). In establishing body camera systems, agencies should therefore give significant thought to how to categorize and store recordings. Restrictions on public disclosure of investigative records would apply to the extent that a recording meets the requirements of that statute. See RCW 42.56.240. Moreover, the Public Records Act permits public agencies to give notice to a person that a requested record pertains to, so that he or she can seek an injunction prohibiting disclosure. RCW 42.56.540. As explained below, however, specific restrictions on disclosure of video from vehicle-mounted cameras would not apply to body-mounted cameras absent a change in the Privacy Act.

 

http://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/video-and-audio-recording-communications-between-citizens-and-law-enforcement-officers

_________________________________________________

 

BTW:

For those that are not aware if law enforcement or anyone for that matter illegally records a private conversation they are subject to the Civil Action section of RCW 9.73.

 

 

RCW 9.73.060

Violating right of privacy—Civil action—Liability for damages.

Any person who, directly or by means of a detective agency or any other agent, violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to legal action for damages, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation of this statute has injured his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation. A person so injured shall be entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering endured by him or her on account of violation of the provisions of this chapter, or liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, not to exceed one thousand dollars, and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other costs of litigation.

 

__________________________________________

 

Many of my readers will recall how many times I called BS on the public statements made by Frank Straub and Mayor Condon regarding the implementation of body cameras since the release of the Use of Force Commission Report back in 2012, and as you have observed the BS calling turned out to be very accurate.

 

BREAKING DOWN THE NEW LAW:

 

(14) Body worn camera recordings to the extent nondisclosure is essential for the protection of any person’s right to privacy as described in RCW 42.56.050, including, but not limited to, the circumstances enumerated in (a) of this subsection. A law enforcement or corrections agency shall not disclose a body worn camera recording to the extent the recording is exempt under this subsection.

 

(a) Disclosure of a body worn camera recording is presumed to be highly offensive to a reasonable person under RCW 42.56.050 to the extent it depicts:

 

***The language above is the preface for identifying specific body camera situations where law enforcement “shall not disclose”. The preface seems to establish a legislative intent to specifically identify those situations where they believe disclosure would “presumed to be highly offensive to a reasonable person”. That could create some real problems if that was their intent as it appears it was.

 

(i)(A) Any areas of a medical facility, counseling, or therapeutic program office where:

(I) A patient is registered to receive treatment, receiving treatment, waiting for treatment, or being transported in the course of treatment; or

 

(II) Health care information is shared with patients, their families, or among the care team; or

(B) Information that meets the definition of protected health information for purposes of the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 or health care information for purposes of chapter 70.02 RCW;

 

***This section was included, as it should have been, to protect an individual’s privacy rights as far as health care is concerned, but what could very well happen after June 19^th is that we see law enforcement agencies withholding public disclosure of BC video of their contacts with folks suffering from mental health episodes including those where an Officer Involved Shooting or Death took place.

 

(ii) The interior of a place of residence where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;

 

***This section could easily end in a big mess for a couple of reasons; 1) The legislature acknowledges here that there is at least some reasonable expectation of privacy inside a residence, so the obvious question becomes when officers enter a residence and are told to turn off the body camera and they don’t…what happens? This will be one for the Washington State Supreme Court at some point, it is just a matter of time and which law enforcement agency it will be. 2)Obviously should an OIS take place inside a residence this section provides law enforcement to claim they legally can’t release the BC Video.

 

 

(iii) An intimate image as defined in RCW 9A.86.010;

*** This should be obvious, but some people might be disappointed.

 

(iv) A minor;

 

*** This provides law enforcement the opportunity to not disclose any BC video involving contacts with anyone under the age of 18, which means the public may never see video where a cop is accused of misconduct against a minor.

 

(v) The body of a deceased person;

*** According to this section the best place for cops to talk about what happened in a OIS, if they leave their BCs running is right next to the body (Ever wonder why many cops that do have their BC running in OIS cases shut them off right after the shooting? :)).

 

 

(vi) The identity of or communications from a victim or witness of an incident involving domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020 or sexual assault as defined in RCW 70.125.030, or disclosure of intimate images as defined in RCW 9A.86.010. If at the time of recording the victim or witness indicates a desire for disclosure or nondisclosure of the recorded identity or communications, such desire shall govern; or

 

*** This is interesting and goes along the lines of the little box on police reports that is never checked and cops don’t ask which I have covered before. The question is will cops finally be required to ask the disclosure question during the contact…or not? As you can see whether or not the BC video can be disclosed is left up to the victim or witness in police contacts involving domestic violence or sexual assault, and although it will likely be rare that a victim or witness doesn’t object to disclosure there may be times when the don’t object, for example in a DV situation involving an Officer Involved Shooting or Death…this could also get interesting.

 

 

(b) The presumptions set out in (a) of this subsection may be rebutted by specific evidence in individual cases.

 

*** This is fairly plain, if you want the video get ready to go to court.

 

 

(c) In a court action seeking the right to inspect or copy a body worn camera recording, a person who prevails against a law enforcement or corrections agency that withholds or discloses all or part of a body worn camera recording pursuant to (a) of this subsection is not entitled to fees, costs, or awards pursuant to RCW 42.56.550 unless it is shown that the law enforcement or corrections agency acted in bad faith or with gross negligence.

 

*** This is one of my favorite sections because when the Bill was first introduced it gave me a good chuckle. This section was specifically designed to derail the Washington State Supreme Court Decision in Yousoufian v. my old classmate and buddy at Lewis and Clark Ron Sims.

_______________________________

 

Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims is a January 15, 2009 6-3 decision of the Washington State Supreme Court based on the Washington Public Records Act.

The state’s high court ruled that a $124,000 fine paid by King County for what their decision referred to as “blatant violations of the state Public Records Act” wasn’t enough of a fine. They sent the case back to Superior Court with a recommendation to increase the penalty.

The plaintiff in the case, Armen Yousoufian, sued the county in 1997 after it delayed the release of documents pertaining to the public financing of Qwest Field (Seahawks Stadium). In response to the ruling, he said the court’s justices, have “at long, long last, given us a strong ruling in favor of public disclosure with some real teeth in it.”^[1]

Five of the court’s nine justices found King County’s actions so egregious as to warrant a fine at the “high end” of the act’s penalty range. The decision also used the phrase “grossly negligent noncompliance with the Public Records Act” to refer to the conduct of the county during the events in question.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/2375302c-0564-419e-8d0f-45bffbf09652

_________________________________

 

The Yousoufian decision, caused some furor in local governments and law enforcement, but not a whole lot because it isn’t their money.

 

 

 

NOW FOR THE GOOD PART!

 

“Good”, depending upon whether you are a law enforcement agency or local government. “Bad” if you are a private citizen or even a media outlet seeking BC video.

 

This is what the new law requires you to identify if you want BC video:

 

 

(d) A request for body worn camera recordings must:

(i) Specifically identify a name of a person or persons involved in the incident;

 

(ii) Provide the incident or case number;

 

(iii) Provide the date, time, and location of the incident or incidents; or

 

(iv) Identify a law enforcement or corrections officer involved in the incident or incidents.

 

(e)(i) A person directly involved in an incident recorded by the requested body worn camera recording, an attorney representing a

person directly involved in an incident recorded by the requested body worn camera recording, a person or his or her attorney who requests a body worn camera recording relevant to a criminal case involving that person, or the executive director from either the Washington state commission on African-American affairs, Asian Pacific American affairs, or Hispanic affairs, has the right to obtain the body worn camera recording, subject to any exemption under this chapter or any applicable law. In addition, an attorney who represents a person regarding a potential or existing civil cause of action involving the denial of civil rights under the federal or state Constitution, or a violation of a United States department of justice settlement agreement, has the right to obtain the body worn camera recording if relevant to the cause of action, subject to any exemption under this chapter or any applicable law. The attorney must explain the relevancy of the requested body worn camera recording to the cause of action and specify that he or she is seeking relief from redaction costs under this subsection (14) (e).17

 

(ii) A law enforcement or corrections agency responding to requests under this subsection (14) (e) may not require the requesting individual to pay costs of any redacting, altering, distorting, pixelating, suppressing, or otherwise obscuring any portion of a body worn camera recording.

 

(iii) A law enforcement or corrections agency may require any person requesting a body worn camera recording pursuant to this subsection (14) (e) to identify himself or herself to ensure he or she is a person entitled to obtain the body worn camera recording under this subsection (14) (e).27

 

(f)(i) A law enforcement or corrections agency responding to a request to disclose body worn camera recordings may require any requester not listed in (e) of this subsection to pay the reasonable costs of redacting, altering, distorting, pixelating, suppressing, or otherwise obscuring any portion of the body worn camera recording prior to disclosure only to the extent necessary to comply with the exemptions in this chapter or any applicable law.

(ii) An agency that charges redaction costs under this subsection (14) (f) must use redaction technology that provides the least costly commercially available method of redacting body worn camera recordings, to the extent possible and reasonable.

(iii) In any case where an agency charges a requestor for the costs of redacting a body worn camera recording under this subsection

 

 

*** It should be pretty easy to figure out how restrictive the requirements above are, and the intent in establishing them.

 

 

THIS IS A BIGGIE!

 

(j) A law enforcement or corrections agency must retain body worn camera recordings for at least sixty days and thereafter may destroy the records.

 

*** The new law reduces the retention period for Body Camera video from 90 days to 60 days. What that means is that law enforcement agencies are free to destroy BC video after 60 days no matter what it contains unless someone quickly gets a PRR in. So, as is often the case if an allegation of misconduct surfaces after 60 days and you want the BC video you are going to be SOL. The Spokane City Council, or the Spokane County Commission could establish Ordinances requiring the SPD or SCSO to retain BC video for a more reasonable length of time…whether they do or not of course is a big question.

 

 

 

Most of the rest of the stuff in the new law is pretty easy to figure out, and establishing a “Body Camera Task Force” has been a part of all the recent attempts at legislation that have not passed.

 

 

 

I hope this was helpful, puts some things in perspective, and opens some eyes about what continues to go on with Body Camera Legislation.

 

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

UPDATE: Make that “INDEPENDENT” Instead of “INDEPENDENT”…per the spelling Nazi! 🙂

Rachel Alexander of the Spokesman Review did a good recap of another one of those public meetings regarding Police Oversight.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/apr/26/interim-ombudsman-asks-community-to-articulate-pol/

 

For those that don’t remember this most recent public meeting regarding Police Oversight is another in a long series of public meetings seeking public input dating back to the time prior to the voters overwhelmingly approving a change to the City Charter (2012) which DID come close to establishing Independent Police Oversight.

 

https://my.spokanecity.org/opendata/charter/article-16/#Article16

 

 

What happened?… one might ask. The truth is Spokane’s elected leaders at the time including Mayor Condon and the City Council refused to fight the “Good Fight” for the Citizens they represent and entered into a labor contract with the Spokane Police Guild which effectively makes the OPO, and OPOC an expensive paper tiger.

 

I had to laugh at this comment Rachel reported in her story:

 

“Logue stopped short of suggesting specific changes to the ordinance but said he’d like the office to serve as a national model for civilian police oversight.”

 

Had Mr. Logue been around Spokane during the time the battle over Police Oversight was taking place perhaps he would have known that the office he now holds IS “a national model for civilian oversight.”.

The history of the battle Spokane lost is fairly well documented, but for some reason people forget.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jan/26/spokane-leaders-outline-proposed-police-reforms/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/nov/10/bland-recipe-for-oversight-of-police-may-be-all/

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2013/11/11/city-council-rejects-agreement-with-police-guild

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/oct/18/center-for-justice-calls-oversight-in-proposed/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/05/spokane-mayor-chief-rally-behind-ombudsman/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/03/limited-spokane-police-ombudsman-plan-pitched-by/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/17/city-council-votes-to-delay-ombudsman-discussion/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/15/spokane-police-oversight-contract-on-councils/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jan/17/spokane-police-guild-contract-proposal-being/

 

 

How do Citizens know the OPO and OPOC are a national model for civilian oversight?

Because over and over again Mayor Condon and Frank Straub told the Citizens of Spokane that the contract with the Guild established a regional and national model for Police oversight. Not only that it was a big part of Mayor Condon’s “Immediate Police Action Plan”.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/3c208ffe-9f5e-4549-b6fb-48ecaa63a478

 

According to Mayor Condon not only was the contract he and Straub pushed through for the OPO and OPOC a regional and national model but it also “delivers to the community unprecedented independent oversight of its police department,”.

 

“This agreement includes the elements requested by the City Council and the public, and delivers to the community unprecedented independent oversight of its police department,” Condon said.

And of course our illustrious City council at the time gave up the battle they were elected to fight, and basically said it was the best they could do.

“On January 2nd, I sent a letter to Mayor Condon, on behalf of a majority of the City Council, asking that he reopen negotiations with the Police Guild to include independent investigation capabilities for our police ombudsman that align with the City Charter,” said City Council President Ben Stuckart. “I believe this new tentative agreement satisfies our request and takes a step forward for our community. I appreciate the Police Guild and the administration for getting this done.”

 

https://my.spokanecity.org/news/releases/2014/02/04/city-police-guild-reach-new-tentative-agreement/

 

 

 

Council President Ben Stuckart, who successfully pushed back against the mayor’s first bite at the apple and helped advance the proposal significantly, has taken heat, along with other council liberals, from the most passionate proponents of reform.

But he says he believes this is not only a good plan in the abstract, but one that satisfies Proposition 1 and the city charter’s call for independence. He also sees it as a victory of the legislative process and the separation of powers, and the civics nerd in me agrees.

“This isn’t a matter of me saying, ‘This is as good as we can get,’ ” Stuckart said. “This is me saying, ‘This is good for the citizens.’

“This should’ve been a time to take a victory lap,” he said. “Together, the citizens and the council forced the mayor to get it done, and it’s going to be a really good thing for the community.”

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/feb/14/shawn-vestal-ombudsman-rule-imperfect-but-promisin/

 

 

Well guess what folks…as predicted over and over…nothing could be further from the truth”

https://examplepro.me/2015/10/23/breaking-down-the-opo-ordinance/

 

 

ENTER BREEAN BEGGS!

 

Finally, someone with some background in dealing with Cops is in a position to ATTEMPT to establish some type of legitimate oversight. Beggs hopefully won’t be the pushover that other members of the City Council have been when it comes to police oversight. What Beggs does know that others in the past have not been willing to accept is that Cops lie. He also should have a clue about, as other members of the City Council are beginning to realize is that the dog and pony shows put on by SPD Administrators before the public and during Public Safety Committee Meetings are in most cases just that…dog and pony shows.

 

Begg’s ideas are sound, I might not agree with all of them, but they are sound and I believe his heart is in the game.

 

The game by the way, is the uphill struggle he will have with the Police Guild and the Condon Administration in trying to establish legitimate Police Oversight. The problems he will have with the Guild are obvious, but the biggest hurdle he will face is the Condon Administration as any Mayor with political aspirations knows full well that when all of the bad deals he has made will come back to haunt him when he seeks election to another office…and this bad deal is among his worst.

 

ENTER BART LOGUE!

 

Logue may make a good Ombudsman IF he is able to completely get away from what he learned during 25 years in the Marine Corps. I ain’t even close to being the same, there is no UCMJ, and Marines don’t have a Union.

 

“I fight with the police department on an almost daily basis to gain some ground, and I do it within the confines of the ordinance that we have,” he said.

 

Don’t talk about it…DOCUMENT IT…POST IT ON YOUR WEBSITE…AND LET THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT EVERY “FIGHT” INVOLVES!!!

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/30/furniture-gate-part-eight-is-this-what-you-want/

 

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

UPDATE… UPDATE…UPDATE !!!

 

Councilman Mike Fagan did respond quickly to me when I requested comments from him regarding this story. He also was willing to answer a number of questions I posed to him and I thank him for that. Among the questions he answered that related to this story was this one.

QUESTION:

2) Do you feel it was ethical for Mayor Condon to accept money from John Stone while he was working as an aide to McMorris-Rogers?  

ANSWER:

“Without ALL of the facts, it would be improper to me to render judgement based what I have seen thus far. At a glance there is an appearance.”

 

Although the documents and press statements speak for themselves, as far as Mayor Condon receiving $15,000.00 from the Stone Family when he was working as an aide for Cathy McMorris-Rogers and sitting in on meetings as her representative, Councilman Fagan is accurate with respect to not having “ALL of the facts”. I have of course requested Mayor Condon comment on this story so I can ask the appropriate questions, but have not received a response. IF and WHEN I receive a response I will report it. The questions I would ask should be fairly obvious to all of my readers.

___________________

A recent story in the Spokesman Review regarding an ethics complaint by Mayor Condon associate Michael Cannon against Council President Ben Stuckart’s aide Adam McDaniel highlights some of the Liberal Vs Conservative gamesmanship we enjoy watching here in Spokane.

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/apr/21/spokane-city-council-aides-outside-political-work-/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/apr/24/editorial-rewrite-council-job-descriptions/

 

The new ethics complaint process written by City Attorney Nancy Isserlis makes for an interesting tool for both sides to attack the other. Whether the complaint is legit or not really makes no difference, the important thing is to get the negative press out there…and it works.

 

Many speculate that Cannon’s complaint was prompted because of his close relationship with Mayor Condon and Stuckart’s recent call for Condon to invoke Garrity on our public employees in the Cotton/Straub Investigation. In my view Stuckart won that one and it is apparent that Mayor Condon has no intention to force our employees to cooperate in the investigation which has really made the Mayor look bad, even in the eyes of many Conservatives. The question is… “If this complaint is part of a typical mudsling game will it work?”. The answer is… “Of course it will!”, at least with some segments of the Community, even though the move was bound to cause a little mud to rub off and attach to Conservative Mike Fagan for his outside political activities.

 

We won’t see Mayor Condon commenting on Cannon’s ethics complainant, although he is welcome to at any time with me, and I will certainly report on any comment he makes. Adam McDaniel has chosen not to comment because of the ongoing ethics complaint.

One of the questions I would ask the Mayor is… “Can you explain how your own outside activities while working as an aide for Cathy McMorris-Rogers are any different from what McDaniel’s outside activities are, and do you believe working for and receiving money from John Stone, while at the same time being CMR’s representative on issues involving his companies was a conflict or in the least bit ethical?” I would of course have a number of follow-up questions some will become obvious later in this story.

 

One thing I should point out is that for some reason Spokesman Review Reporters as of late never seem to ask our local politicians the pointed questions that are common place in most other Communities even though they have information that would provide important context and such is the case here.

 

A good place to start would be this 2012 SR Article written by Jonathan Brunt which deals with Condon’s family relationship with the John Stone Empire. You might notice the reference in the story to Condon having the Ethics Commission look into any conflicts. I’m not going to get into all of the business relationships the Condon’s have with John Stone, or the contracts Pacificlean has with the City of Spokane. Those business relationships are easy to find even with the recent changes to individuals listed as members in corporate filings with the Secretary of State (SRM, Barr-Tech, Pacificlean, etcetera). I will mention however that Stone along with some of his business partners and the Cowles Family are strong Condon supporters and contributors.

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/feb/19/condon-family-feud-could-trouble-mayor/

 

 

The key thing for me in that article is Condon’s admission to Brunt that he did sit in on meetings regarding issues involving some of John Stone’s interests.

 

Now to the Nitty Gritty!

 

For folks that don’t know all Congressional Staffers are required by law to report under the penalty of perjury their outside income and Mayor Condon did just that in 2010 while he was an aide to CMR. Here is what is interesting about Mayor Condon’s 2010 outside income that he reported.

 

 

 

 

I guess some folks, and reporters, would take a look at Condon’s reported outside income and say… “Oh…it looks like he did $15,000.00 worth of consulting for a fish and chips joint named “Captain Jack LLC”…but when one checks… Captain Jack LLC ain’t no fish and chips joint, as a matter of fact I will be darned if I have been able to determine what type of business Captain Jack LLC actually was…so I would have to ask Mayor Condon what the business was and exactly what type of consulting did they get for $15,000.00.

 

One of the first things you notice when you run the filings on Captain Jack LLC is that the Agent is Bryan P Stone of the Stone family who is pretty prolific at setting up LLCs. You also note that the sole member listed is Captain Charlie LLC.

 

One might also notice that Captain Jack LLC was set up in 2004, expired 07/31/2010, and went inactive 11/01/2010, which is interesting since Mayor Condon filed his required paperwork in May of 2010. Whatever “Consulting” the Mayor did for Captain Jack LLC must not have helped the business it was in, whatever that was.

 

 

It is pretty easy for anyone to determine who the first back company is for an LLC like Captain Jack LLC when folks aren’t that slick about it. So here is the back company for Captain Jack LLC… “Captain Charlie LLC”:

 

It makes it pretty plain, at least to me, where the 15 Grand came from…so the question is… “Did the Stone Family payment to Condon while he was an aide to CMR represent a conflict of interest and ethics violation as his friend Cannon alleges was perpetrated by McDaniel?”

 

Don’t think for a second that political gamesmanship doesn’t take place on both sides of the political spectrum…it does…and around Spokane it is really easy to get away with because no one seems to care and for the most part local media doesn’t bother to take an in-depth look at what is actually going on.

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!  

(* Coming soon a story regarding an old WSP investigation into a former State employee)