Comments on: CiViK provides 2009 City Council Candidate Information from the Washington Public Disclosure Commission

By: Dick

Dick — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:59:58 +0000

I understand what you are saying, Rob, and I gave this some thought before responding. I believe my original comment was relevant. I believe that CiViK posted the information not to be altruistic, but to polish its image. They didn’t have to post that hypocritical line that I quoted about transparency, they could have just posted the links.

That said, I appreciate the fact that you want to have a higher level of discourse here, and not just a forum for mud slinging. I will think before posting. Thanks for all you do for Kirkland with Kirkland Views.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:04:36 +0000

Hi all,
While I understand your opposition to some of the positions CiViK has taken, and while my personal opinion about CiViK’s positions on the issues is irrelevant to this blog, I do wish to make the following point:
The article you are commenting about references public information that CiViK has gathered and posted for the public to use. That is a public service and that is why I have referenced this in the article. It is a service to the community whether you like the organization which provided that service or not is irrelevant. This is good for us all that information about ALL CANDIDATES has been made readily available for us to use. If CiViK had only posted information about selected candidates, then I could find fault, but they have explicitly not done so. Your attacks against an organization for this are unwarranted in my opinion.
When we view every group in town only in the light of their previous actions, be it CiViK or the KDA or the Chamber… we will forever be fighting each other. Judge each action for it’s intrinsic value. Not based upon past actions. I would hope that Kirkland Views would be judged upon our actions and not some past perceived position or action.
This public information is good for our community. Period.
Other issues are more appropriately addressed elsewhere.
Thank you for your comments.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: K Town Girl

K Town Girl — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:36:42 +0000

AGAIN – Why is Civik so interested in transparency, when they are so clandestine themselves? This kind of behavior gets no respect from me, or many, many others. It completely invalidates them as a group. They certainly don’t represent me and I am ALL FOR a Vibrant Kirkland.

Why can’t you even have a valid email address or phone number for the Citizens of Kirkland to comment or ask questions?? 555-555-5555? Come on, you could at least have put a 425 in there. Show yourselves, or we’ll do an investigation of our own. Now THAT should be interesting.

In the meantime, my feeling is that to continue publishing their “announcements” gives them a credibility that they simply don’t deserve.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:03:21 +0000

Well said, Dick. I asked them for a list of members also when I was invited to their auction last year. It’ll never happen; they’re too scared that their neighbors might confront them with a different opinion. They seem to be well funded, and well versed on how to hide behind their website and non-profit status. Supposedly Civik’s original members from the Lake & Central project aren’t involved anymore and Civik is just a shell organization where “concerned” (but anonymous) citizens can put money in case it’s needed to be “held.” I still don’t know what “held” means even though that’s what I was told by a member; of course I was then also told there is no list of members other than the original board members, and there are no dues. 2 or 3 people have to sign the checks and be on the government paperwork. You’re on the right track; going to Olympia or the Feds for a list of donors would seem to be the only way to go. Not worth the time spent on a group of NIMBY’s.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:46:25 +0000

Look up any KingCo parcel or property here (be sure to coppy the whole link from http to Addstart into your browser):
http://www5.metrokc.gov/parcelviewer/Viewer/KingCounty/Viewer.asp?App=Parcels&SearchFor=Addstart

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: mavio

mavio — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:41:59 +0000

Tom Hodgeson’s F-1 lists his property worth over $100,000 as a number only. I suppose it is a parcel number that if you know how to do the research you can find the address.

Listing it in this manner doesn’t seem to be very open or transparent or cooperating with the spirit of the law..He neglected to sign the form also.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Dick

Dick — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:22:01 +0000

It is good to see this information in easy to access form, and I thank CiViK for providing it. I like this statement from their site:

“In keeping with our goals, which include championing transparency in government and expanding awareness by promoting public access to information, …”

Transparency and public access to information is a great idea, so the next step is clear.

CiViK should post a detailed list of THEIR donors and the amounts they have given them.

Let us see who is funding their work. They certainly needed some hefty financial backing to fight the development at the Bank of America project in downtown Kirkland. The public has a right to know. This information is available from the State of Washington, so they cannot claim it is confidential. It just isn’t as easy to find and access as they have made the candidate information.

CiViK leaders, make the information available, please. Just send link or a list to Kirkland Views.

To withhold it would be hypocritical.

Like or Dislike: 0 0