Chair’s message

“Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq” the front page headline read on August 17th’s The Olympian. I was stunned, knowing that our 3rd District Congressman, Brian Baird, had voted against invading Iraq and subsequently for bringing our troops home. Before long, my phone began to ring – not from local callers, but from Washington Post, Oregonian, and The Columbian reporters seeking controversy within the Democratic party. Fortunately, Baird knows we have a strong local party and had already requested our executive committee meet with him. The reporters didn’t get their story, just my comments that I didn’t understand Baird’s change of heart or share his conclusions, and we certainly looked forward to talking with him.

Soon local TCD members and other activists began to contact me and I’ve continued to encourage a reasoned perspective on the whole matter. At the suggestion of one of these members, I am excerpting below relevant portions of an email I sent him in response to his frustrations after Petraeus’ recent testimony. In his words, “we all need to have the perspective you just shared with me.” (Please note the thoughts expressed are my own and do NOT represent an “official” position of the TCD!)

Well, I "feel your pain.”…

With regard to (Baird’s) recent conclusion that it's better to begin leaving Iraq next spring instead of now, I think that's based entirely on faith, not reason. When we met with him several weeks ago, we had a good dialogue. He explained his thinking -- that we broke it and we need to do what we can to fix it, minimizing bloodshed to the extent possible, and that he had become convinced that leaving now will be worse than leaving next spring. At the same time, he spoke about our need to provide educational opportunities to every American, and I noted our fiasco in Iraq will soon cost us $3 billion a week, leaving little for domestic programs like education.

I told him I didn't see any evidence the past several years that our continued presence will make things better and that he seemed to be operating purely on faith. He agreed "I know, John", but thought there was a "20%" chance of significant improvement in stability in the next 6 months. He feels strongly that beginning to leave now will result in increased instability and bloodshed, but believes staying awhile longer will minimize both.

I do not agree with him, but he seems sincere in his belief and I respect his right to have an opinion that differs from mine. In contrast to most of us, he has at least visited the region! And, yes, he may have been influenced by the slick PowerPoint presentations, but he contends vehemently he wasn't, having told the State Department weeks in advance who he wanted to see and where he wanted to go.

As for Petraeus, I found the whole vote-to-condemn-Moveon.org unfortunate. The fact this silliness occurs when there's real work to do speaks volumes about how screwed up things are! I hadn't tracked who voted for the resolution, but if Brian did, I'm assuming it's because he seems to have a great admiration for Petraeus (when they met in Iraq, Brian was impressed that he did not tow the Bush party line about why some areas had less violence than before) and he frankly seems frustrated with the Democratic leadership.

Iraq is certainly a quagmire and, let’s be honest, none of us know what'll happen when or how best to fix what we screwed up. I believe a US military presence makes matters worse, but have to admit I can see that an Iraqi-requested police or peace keeping force may help. (Think if we had done that in Rwanda or, more recently, Sudan.)

Most I've spoken with are not yet ready to throw Brian out with the bathwater, but time will tell. I'm taking a wait and see attitude. The fact I don’t agree with him about when to leave Iraq doesn’t negate the good stuff he’s done.

Meanwhile, we do our best to focus on local candidates and issues where we have some influence, regularly trying to fend off the bad publicity that seems to keep coming from Congressional inaction.

When Values Clash – Life Under the Growth Management Act

Joe Hyer, Olympia City Council Member

(Editor’s Note: This article is a follow-up to a presentation given at the August Thurston County Democrats’ meeting regarding development in the Chambers Lake basin.)

During the 2005 City Council elections, a new neighborhood association appeared in Southeast Olympia - the Association of Citizens Concerned about Chambers Lake Basin (ACCCLB). As a neighborhood association it is unique, as its area lies within three different jurisdictions, Olympia, Lacey and Thurston County. Seems like a big neighborhood until you recognize the natural environment doesn’t pay any attention to municipal boundaries. The association was concerned about the entire basin, regardless of any city or county lines.

The neighbors banded together because decades of growth and development were threatening the basin with flooding, high groundwater and habitat loss. Their purpose was not to stop growth, but to ensure any growth or development in the basin worked to protect and enhance what we are learning is a fragile ecosystem.

In the spring of 2006, the Olympia City Council responded to the ACCCLB’s concerns by applying a moratorium on subdivisions in the Olympia city limits within the basin in order to address the stormwater and seasonal flooding issues. It was argued that Olympia’s adoption of the newest stormwater drainage manual from the State already addressed these concerns - yet that manual would require a subdivision in which more than half the land area was dedicated to stormwater retention ponds…certainly not the aesthetics we want in our development, nor the ‘highest’ and ‘best’ land use we can imagine.

What we’ve learned is that the Growth Management Act (GMA) was straightforward for its first decade - we simply developed all the easy parcels of land first. Now, however, as the urban growth areas become more developed, we see subdivision applications for steeper slopes, in sensitive drainage basins, in areas of high groundwater - places we never envisioned would need to develop.

In Olympia alone, we have the Green Cove Creek Basin in Northwest, with mixed success and failure in the Low Impact Cooper Crest Development. In Southwest, the proposed Kaiser Heights development west of Ken Lake looks to be a topographic challenge of hills, valleys, and drainage problems. In Southeast, there’s Chambers Basin. If you look at a map of the Urban Growth Area, you’ll see a huge, undeveloped U-Shape between the northeast neighborhoods and the Lilly Road area - why hasn’t it developed? Could it be due to similar drainage and stormwater issues? Even in the heart of the city, many antiquated plats and small infill short plats are being proposed on steep slopes and dense ravines, both areas we would never have considered developing a decade ago.

Planning, decision-making, and complying with the GMA become more and more difficult, because we began to see a conflict between competing values. We want to protect the environment. That is a key value. But we also need density near urban areas, in order to provide for transportation and utilities, such as sewer and water, minimize air pollution, and meet other goals that help keep the environment healthy. This is a key value. What happens, then, when environmentally sensitive areas are located right where the density is needed?

Add in jurisdictional boundaries and we see yet another layer of complexity, as the Chambers Basin example illustrates. Development that occurred before Lacey was even a city, when stormwater retention hadn’t yet been conceived of, contributes. Different manuals with different retention requirements in various jurisdictions complicate the problem. The ‘Best Available Science’ is still evolving as we learn and study more, but fixing past mistakes is both costly and extremely difficult.

Growth management is simple and straightforward - when growth is easy to manage! But when growth exceeds projections, when multiple jurisdictions with different codes and standards overlay the natural geography, when the topography becomes steeper and more difficult, and when the very values we hold dear begin to conflict with one another, forcing a choice between them - well, that describes where we are at today.

The solution to all this? Cooperation and collaboration between jurisdictions will help. Reasoned, rational decision-making will help. Clarifying and prioritizing our key values will help. Most important, however, is a recognition that no single solution will solve our problems. What works in Northwest Olympia won’t necessarily work in Southeast, or in Tumwater’s Salmon Creek Basin. Geology, topography, soil, habitat - nature is incredibly diverse, and we must recognize that our protection and development techniques must be adapted to that environment, and not vice versa. We can learn from other areas, we can use science and proven methods, but in the end our development patterns must be put in harmony with the environment, instead of attempting to adapt the environment to a standardized development technique.

Negotiating Hanford’s Future: Now is the Time to Speak Up

Helen Wheatley, Board President, Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog group

The biggest nuclear waste cleanup problem faced by this nation sits in sagebrush country about 230 miles east of here, at Hanford. And the biggest problem at Hanford is found in what is called the 200 area, or the “Tank Farms.”

Picture fifty-three Capitol Domes in the ground, each built to hold a million gallons, and you get an idea of the scale. Add dozens and dozens of smaller tanks. All contain mixed brews of radioactive materials and hazardous chemical wastes that turn the tanks into slow chemical reactors. This is the legacy of decades of nuclear weapons production, starting with Fat Man and Little Boy.

Most of the liquid waste was poured into 149 single shell tanks, almost all built from 1943 through the 1950s. Many of these tanks have sprung leaks, and the more we learn about the underground plumes moving toward, or in some cases already hitting the Columbia River, the worse it seems to get.

The most successful approach to the problem so far, has been to build better, double-shelled tanks and pump waste from the old tanks into them. Twenty-eight of those Capitol Domes are of this newer design. But building new tanks is neither cheap nor permanent, so the search is on for a better way.

Is a solution in sight? Let’s put it this way: the US Department of Energy (USDOE) has offered to get the wastes out of the single shell tanks by the year 2040. The Waste Treatment Plant, which is supposed to solidify and contain the liquid wastes of the tanks, is years behind schedule, billions over budget and untested. Not even the demonstration plant that is supposed to prove the technology has yet been completed.

USDOE must set deadlines because of the 1989 Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) among the state, the Environmental Protection Agency and USDOE, which came about because of its Superfund Site status. Under the TPA, the single shelled tanks are supposed to be emptied by 2018.

The Department of Energy has failed repeatedly to meet cleanup deadlines, or the official “milestones” set along the way. Rather than pursue the risky and possibly counterproductive course of taking the federal government to court for failing to clean up the pollution it created, the State of Washington is now renegotiating the Agreement. The negotiations are secret, but they agreed to take a pause and bring some of the key points before the public for discussion.

When I attended the Hanford Advisory Board meeting where the official update was released, I heard repeated comments that the proposed agreement reflects a very weak negotiating position for the state. The EPA struggles, for its part, to be effective in the face of Bush-induced manpower and resource shortages. State officials have worried for years that, as the number of states with nuclear Superfund sites dwindles, the collective strength of leftover states like Washington shrinks as well, especially in Congress where the cleanup money is doled out year to year.

Thus, while the state once objected to the USDOE’s claims that it couldn’t clean up all the tanks until 2042, it is now willing to accept 2047 as the official deadline. Desperate for a solution, the Governor appears to have taken the position that failure of the Waste Treatment Plant is not an option. That puts the state in the paradoxical position of having to allow the federal government a dangerously long time to get it done.

This is serious chess. For the “give” of time, the state is demanding the “gets” of closer supervision of the construction of the plant and management of the tank farms in the meantime, and better financial and scheduling accountability. The TPA would also contain something new and of great importance to the public: directives and schedules for the cleanup of polluted groundwater, especially those containing hexavalent chromium, strontium 90 and uranium.

In truth, the position of the State of Washington in both negotiating and upholding the Tri-Party Agreement lies in its representation of the public interest, and rests on the foundation of public support. Oregon is not allowed a place at the table, so our state bears responsibility to speak for the entire region. It would be of immeasurable importance for the Governor and other parties to hear that putting groundwater cleanup into the agreement is valued profoundly. The added oversight is great, too – although our own State Legislature must follow through and support Governor Gregoire with a budget to see that it is done well and with adequate staffing.

But personally, and not to put too fine a point on it, when it comes to Hanford I don’t trust the federal government farther than I can spit. And I trust contractors even less. I am very uncomfortable with the Waste Treatment Plant gambit. The Governor may be able to hang tough and play it cool, but as an interested member of the public, I was never good at chess. I’m sweating bullets thinking about earthquakes and all the other surprises fate can hand to that windy patch of sagebrush country and the Columbia River that gives life to so much in our part of the world.

Maybe the timeline for tank cleanup is too long. Maybe the state should demand that the federal government put energy into alternatives to the Waste Treatment Plant. Maybe the demands regarding groundwater should be greater and tighter, with enforceable deadlines instead of what the agencies are calling “Target Goals.”

And maybe the TPA should reflect the principles of I-297, the Cleanup Priority Act: don’t bring in new waste until you clean up what is already here. There should be not talk of dumping high level (“Greater Than Class C”) nuclear waste at Hanford, or building new nuclear waste reprocessing facilities at Hanford (GNEP), or finding any number of creative new ways to turn a piece of our state – on which a number of tribes have rights of access under the Treaty of 1850 – into a national sacrifice zone.

The negotiators will close the doors and head back to the table in mid-October. If you don’t want your children or grandchildren stuck playing this Cold War struggle out to Endgame, now is a good time to speak up.

Pre-Caucus Forums

Emmett O’Connell, Committee Member At-Large

Next January, before precinct caucuses are held throughout the county on February 9th, the Thurston County Democrats will hold a series of "pre-caucus issue forums." Forum participants will have the opportunity to discuss and submit ideas for platform planks, which will be passed on to the platform committee. This year, there will be no opportunity during the precinct caucuses to discuss or vote on platform planks. The purpose of these pre-caucus forums will be to offer a venue for ideas for the platform.

Two years ago the pre-caucus forums were split up into several topics. This year, we'll hold a series of general topic forums. Depending on attendance, the forum can be broken up into topic subgroups. We'll hold forums throughout Thurston County (including more than one forum in south county) to make attending at least one forum easy.

We’ll update our website www.thurstondemocrats.org with the location and times for these pre-caucus forms as soon as we have them confirmed.

The 5 W’s of Precinct Caucuses

Debby Pattin, TCD State Committee Woman

What?: Precinct Caucuses to elect delegates, by presidential preference, to represent their candidates at the County Convention, the Legislative and Congressional Caucuses, the State Convention, and ultimately the Democratic National Convention.

Why?: Washington State Democrats use the caucuses (precinct, legislative, congressional, as well as the state convention) to elect delegates, based on presidential preference, to the Democratic National Convention.

And what about the Presidential Primary? The State of Washington, per statute, will conduct a Presidential Preference Primary, on Tuesday, February 19th. The Washington State Democrats Central Committee (WSDCC) voted 119 – 42 at their April 2007 meeting to continue allocation of all delegates through the caucus system. The Republicans voted to allocate a portion of their delegates through the caucus and the remainder through the presidential preference primary. Therefore, the results of the February 19, 2008 primary will be non-binding for the Democrats, but partially binding for the Republicans. The results will give the national campaigns a clearer picture of how the population is likely to vote in the general election, and will provide Washington State Democrats with the names of voters who requested a Democratic ballot.

When?:

• February 9 – 1:00-3:00pm - Precinct caucuses
• April 5 – 2nd Legislative District Caucus
• April 19 – 9:00am-4:00pm - Thurston County Democratic Party Convention
• April 19 - 22nd Legislative District (LD) Caucus and 20th and and 35th LD Sub-caucuses (in conjunction with the Thurston County Democratic Party Convention)
• May 17th – Congressional District Caucuses (location and hours to be announced)
• June 13-15 – State Convention in Spokane
• August 25-28 – Democratic National Convention in Denver, CO
• November 4 – Presidential Election

Where?: Precinct caucuses will be held at a multitude of sites throughout Thurston County. Most caucuses will be held in public school buildings, with others held in church buildings, city council chambers, community centers, and a few held in private residences. A full list of caucus sites will be printed in the January 2008 Thurston County Democrats newsletter, posted on the website at www.thurstondemocrats.org, and printed in The Olympian newspaper. Once all sites are finalized, each Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) will be notified as to the location of their caucus.

Who?: All voters registered in Washington State, as well as 17 yr. olds who will be 18 by November 4, 2008, who identify themselves as Democrats, may participate in the caucuses. Washington State does not have political party registration requirement, so Independents, as well as Republicans who have had enough, may participate in the Democratic caucuses.

Active Duty Military members who are unable to attend their precinct caucus, disabled and infirm voters, and those whose religious observation prohibits Saturday participation, may submit their proxy vote via an “affidavit of non-attendance’ that will be available from the Washington State Democrats or from Thurston County Democrats. Per WSDCC Rules, the Thurston County Democrats must receive these affidavits by Friday, February 8, 2008.

What can you do to help make the caucuses a success?: You can get your grass roots moving and help recruit new PCOs, as they are the ones who chair the precinct caucuses. If you already are a PCO, be sure to appoint a proxy for your precinct so that this person can assist you, and fill in for you if you cannot attend your caucus. Also, if you are an experienced PCO or caucus attendee, please consider volunteering to serve as an Area Caucus Coordinator (also known as a Site Leader). These Area Caucus Coordinators oversee the distribution and collection of materials, ensure that the caucus rules and procedures are followed, and serve as the on-site liaison with the facility.

And everyone can network to encourage their friends and neighbors to turn out for the caucuses on February 9th. Be sure to tell families of the active duty members, those who are disabled or infirm, and those with religious observation restrictions, about the affidavit of non-attendance option. We want to encourage as many Democrats as possible to participate in the caucus process.

The Budget: On Target for 2008

By Helen Wheatley, TCD Treasurer

As we come to the end of our fundraising year, Thurston County Democrats can pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

One of our major goals for the year was to raise at least $21,000 to launch the 2008 campaign season, and it looks like we have met it handily.

Although Lakefair was a disappointment again this year, the Burger Booth continues to prove its value. Pride Day was an especially noteworthy success. Because the Burger Booth is now in beautiful condition, thanks to Jerry Muchmore, Mike Pelela, Harvey Williamson and others, we can grab opportunities like Pride Day on short notice and make the most of it. Compared to established events like Super Saturday and Lakefair, Pride Day was cheap and gave great returns, so we might want to explore doing more "quick hits" like that.

The Jefferson-Jackson Dinner and Auction was another great success. The auction is always the key, and a lot of effort and imagination went into turning it into a great fundraiser. It is never too early to start gathering great auction items for next year! The team effort involved in this year's event was comparable to the Burger Booth in the amount of work, but the number of people involved was too small to try to pull the same thing off every year. If you felt that 2007 was a strong turning point for the event, please think about volunteering for 2008.

One of the great surprises of the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner was the boost it gave to the Evalyn Poff Scholarship. We did not budget any income for the scholarship at the beginning of this year, yet donors contributed over $6000 on the night of the event. That amazing generosity supported scholarship for four graduating high school students this year, and carried the scholarship a long way down the road to becoming a permanent part of the Thurston County Democrats’ contribution to our community and to future Democratic activists.

Although we did not make our ambitious target for membership, this innovation in fundraising and involvement looks like a positive direction. We raised about $4000 from memberships, which proved a significant help in offsetting the cost of the newsletter. Of course, advertising would be a better way to do this, and improving advertising income will have to become a major goal eventually, if we are to keep the newsletter looking as great as it does.

On a cautionary note, the overall fundraising amounts for the year are not achieving the goals we set for the year, so a big part of our success is due to thrift, as our operating costs have been far below budgeted expenses. Next year will be another story -- a bigger one, all around!

In My View

In April, I thoroughly enjoyed Teresa’s “People of Color” article. I found it insightful and personal. Since I’ve been involved with the feminist movement (including working with N.O.W.) from the early ‘70’s, I also found it ironically funny.

One of the things we’ve worked on for years in the feminist movement is recognizing that some women have identical issues and some have different issues. With N.O.W., some of those different issues have been incorporated. Some issues are yet to be incorporated but groups have been formed to work on them. N.O.W. also works with Democrats, ACLU, and others.

Then, in July, I find that someone found Teresa’s article offensive and my reaction was “Get Serious!” Maybe it was the timing. So, white women aren’t perfect. We’ve known that for years! Nobody is perfect! I used to find lots of views offensive, especially during the very sexist and racist 1970’s. Times have changed and so have I. I like different opinions in our Democratic newsletter. They enlighten me and don’t enflame me. “Hateful vs. Educational”? My suggestion is re-read the article.

Meanwhile, if you want to learn about other perspectives you have to listen to them first. Read some issues of MS Magazine and learn about different perspectives from women around the globe. Invite more people with different perspectives to write articles for this newsletter. Then give support to those issues that we can incorporate like adding women trapped in the illegal sex trades into our Immigration Policy.

Sincerely,
Linda Lombard