Dear Editor,
I think it’s important that we get the facts straight on what happened at
the council meeting that spurred Dan Clawson’s frivolous law suit, which
will now cost the taxpayers astronomical amounts of public funds so he can
vent his frustration about a vote that he didn’t like.
The entire issue was being discussed because Master Builders Association,
which represents most of the builders in the region, felt they did not
have adequate input into the new design standards that was about to become law
in Renton.
Marcie Palmer made a suggestion that we postpone our final vote in order
To convene a meeting to address these concerns. Dan Clawson then launched
Into a tirade against Marcie and MBA, which became an argument between Dan,
Terri Briere and myself, when I voiced my concerns about Dan’s abrupt attack on
Marcie and MBA. Before the council could complete its discussion on Marcie’s
request, Dan cut off further debate by forcing a vote on the ordinance, which was then not approved.
This situation reminds me once again of the Highlands meeting, where the
public were shut down from the discussion when they wanted to participate.
What is so wrong about making sure we listen to the people involved before
making law? Isn’t that our job?
While in actuality, the majority of the council approves of the ordinance,
we wanted the concerns raised by MBA to be resolved. Open government
requires open discussion and welcoming input, dissent, and questions from
the council members, the public, and the parties involved in the issue.
Dan forced the council to vote on the ordinance before we could complete
discussion on Marcie Palmer’s request for a little more time before taking
the final vote. Had he not interfered with the simple process of
deliberating over a request, there would have been no forced vote, a
meeting would have been convened and the issue resolved, and a vote taken the
following week or so. What was the rush?
Acting as his own attorney, Clawson is able to file frivolous suits
Without a real financial impact. Renton citizens are already paying an outside
law firm to defend us against his outrageous complaints, which could mount
into hundreds of thousands like the recent case in Shoreline.
I implore Dan Clawson to reconsider his actions and face the facts on his
motivation behind this charade. Renton deserves open government, open
discussion, and council members who respect and appreciate input from
others. Filing suit from political motivations or an angry reaction to a
vote at the cost to our taxpayers is deplorable.
Randy Corman
Renton City Council Position #1
This is an obvious political ploy by Koelker and Clawson, and it’s a crime that taxpayers will be stuck paying the tens of thousands to satisfy their agenda. This is a crime and Clawson should be recalled. I hope he’s smart enough not to consider running for re-election!
You didn’t mention if Clawson would be accountable for the city’s legal fees if he fails to win his silly lawsuit. You should keep readers informed of the ongoing costs so we’ll know why we don’t have more cops and more sidewalks, and why our utility rates need to be raised so much every year. What’s sad is that Clawson thinks he’s doing a good job serving our interests. Think how far ahead we would be financially if he would just go away and play attorney on his own dime.
Randy,
I watched the council meeting in question and I am having trouble finding the part where Dan Clawson launched into a “tirade” against Marcie and the MBA. If I have time this weekend, I intend to do a verbatim transcription of that part of the meeting and will post it. I believe you are mischaracterizing what actually happened and what Clawson actually said. I thought Kathy Keolker did a good job of reporting the extensive public process to that point. It really appears as if the Master Builders Association had plenty of opportunity to voice their concerns, but missed the boat.
If the shoe had been on the other foot, and a private citizen (a voting constituent) had claimed they didn’t have enough input, I doubt you would have given them the time of day. But because this is a powerful lobbyist group, with lots of political and financial clout, you bend over backwards.
The old saying, “When you don’t have a case, attack the plaintiff” certainly comes to mind here. Attacking the plaintiff also has the effect of discouraging citizens from ever trying to hold government officials accountable. OPMA violations rarely get prosecuted in this state because citizens have to spend their own money on legal fees, whereas the public officials have all of their legal fees paid by the taxpayers. So I applaud anybody who has the guts to file a lawsuit when they believe their govt. officials are violating the law.
I appreciate your articulate comment, but it jumps out at me that you do not know me very well. In fact I always make sure citizens have proper time to comment on our proposals, and this has been a sore point with our mayor. Last year she wrongly accused me of trying to break the law by letting citizens speak at a public hearing, that I had called for because the public felt they did not have enough time to comment on our highlands plan. Click here for the most dramatic example. Just last Monday, I was specifically thanked during audience comment by residents of Stonegate, for listening to them the week before when Langley Ridge developers and the mayor wanted us to approve the final plat. And the airport jet center, I was the one that made sure we did more study due to audience citizen concerns. Read more of my articles under “Highlands” and “Airport” before you make assumptions about me. In fact, because of this comment, I think I’ll do an article about the Stonegate/Langely Ridge issue, and how the mayor and Planning and Development Committee leadership had failed to address citizen concerns until I asked the tough questions.
I appreciate you preparing a transcript of the meeting, since everyone should know what was actually said. It will be clear when it is all documented, and Dan Clawson is deposed during discovery, that he is a liar. I hope you note body language and volume on your transcript, especially identifying where Dan turns red with anger as he realizes that he and Terri Briere are once again going to be forced to listen to and respect the third member of Planning and Development Committee, Marcie Palmer. In your transcript, you may want to note that Dan was shaking/quivering in his seat too, even though that may not be obvious on the small streaming video (talk to some first-hand witnesses). Dan and Terri don’t like having to listen to Marcie since the Mayor does not have Marcie wrapped around her little finger, the way she keeps Dan and Terri managed.
The worst part of this whole ordeal was the confirmation that Dan Clawson is not just deceptive or misleading….but instead a he is a pure and simple, childish, school-yard liar Click here to see my basis for saying this….I was not going to say more unless provoked,, but I consider this provocation 🙂
His track-record for deception makes it impossible for the rest of us to count on his word. We have to make sure we get everything in writing from him, and that we do not have conversations with him without witnesses. This is awkward and disappointing.