WHY NOT BOB?…….HEGAMIN FOR MAYOR
NEWSLETTER -- 8 June 13, 2001
NEWSLETTER -- 7 June 6, 2001
SINCE THEY DIDN'T ASK ME. In wake of the killing of Aaron Roberts by a Seattle police officer on Thursday, May 31, 2001, I believe it is incumbent on me to present a summarized version of my responses to a proposal for a Civilian Review Board of police activity.
NEWSLETTER -- 6 June 4, 2001
In my first NEWSLETTER, I stated in part that: "It is my belief that Seattle's mayor must be able to deal with the City's future by anticipating, analyzing, and acting with realistic solutions on any issue. I have the background to perform that role and, as a retired City Light engineer, especially as it relates to the utility's policies, rates and crises."
As Mayor, I will consider it my mandate to assure a diverse cultural, social and racial society that it will be provided with the basic functions of government, which includes service from Seattle City Light. As a municipal utility, it has the responsibility of delivering low-cost electrical energy to the residents of the City. Our economy, technology, communication, and transportation, among others, depend on that energy to compete. Because of that need, the people of Seattle must have a mayor who has the ability to sort through the maze of countless combinations of data, philosophies and influences to accommodate them. I plan to oblige.
NEWSLETTER -- 5 May 16, 2001
Recent editorials and news coverage of the Seattle's mayoral race project the notion that there are just four candidates for the office, although seven others and I have officially announced our candidacy. In order to help authenticate my credentials and qualifications for the office, I am replicating statements I had written for two of my previous campaigns. The first was used in the Seattle Voters Pamphlet of September 1993, when I ran for the Mayor's office. I am making the same pledges today as I made then. In part, I wrote:
NEWSLETTER -- 4 May 10, 2001
Let's face it! Seattle's municipal elections have been and are still being controlled by "good-government" and special interest groups, through the simple act of granting endorsements and favorable ratings to "preapproved" candidates. Such awards, normally determined behind closed doors by a select few, are based on subjective criteria used in reviewing and evaluating candidate views and opinions. Voters, however, being excluded from the review process are left without any option other than to accept their conclusions without recourse. I intend to break that mold.
Such groups are simply "gatekeepers" who control the fate of political candidates and the future of Seattle. It explains why voters find it difficult to differentiate incumbents from challengers, coming to one of two conclusions, that "it doesn't make any difference who wins, they're all the same", or that their vote was for the "lesser of two evils." This year, Seattle's voters will again be led to believe that they must rely on the same "gatekeepers" - including the media - for their analyses and candidate ratings, still without the opportunity to assess the necessary data for themselves.
A "gatekeeper" can rate candidates for its own members, if it must. However, I contend that if it uses the media to announce its results, it should justify its awards by providing its questions and candidate answers to all voters.
This is my concern. In 1997, although I was the only opponent of an incumbent in Seattle's general election that year, reporters of the two daily papers never once sought me out for my views or opinions on any local issue of the day. Meanwhile, I had been answering questionnaires, of which a part of the one submitted by the Alki Foundation, an affiliate of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, is included below. The media did not pick up on that, either.
NEWSLETTER -- 3 May 8, 2001
As a City Light "network" design engineer and candidate for the Seattle City Council in 1981, I called for a moratorium on permits for the construction of high-rise buildings. Its purpose was to allow time to develop a comprehensive plan to match proposed developments with City Light's capability to supply them with power, yet without increasing residential rates. Obviously, without an energy policy, City Hall gave the developers a free hand to build indiscriminately. The following articles are offered for your information.
NEWSLETTER -- 2 May 3, 2001
"Why are you running for Mayor?" On its face, the question appears to be simple. But, reality tells us that more than one answer applies. In my case, I am running for Mayor to eradicate the abuses of government's official power; make City Hall accountable; establish fiscal discipline; and restore the people's confidence in their elected officials. The job is more than just dealing with short-term issues.
Overshadowing all, though, is stopping and eliminating City Hall's guiding principle that "the end justifies the means." It is a practice that currently manifests itself in Seattle's form of governance, which allows City Hall to violate the Rule of Law for any legitimately altruistic act or for any perceived "good." As the Mayor of Seattle, I will terminate this practice as Seattle's way of doing the people's business.
I offer two of my papers to illustrate my position. I hope they help you understand how incompetence and "quids pro quo" have riddled constitutional governance in Seattle.