In the wake of another mass shooting, this time by a fifteen year old boy in Raleigh, North Carolina, I am reminded that “my” U.S. Representative, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, is so deeply entwined with the NRA that she co-sponsors a bill that could make these deranged shooters even more deadly.
You all recognize the cylindrical device that an assassin screws onto the muzzle of his gun in spy movies, the device that reduces the discharge of the gun to a muffled “Pfffft!”. The mass shootings that have become so sickeningly common in our country—Sandy Hook, Uvalde, and Parkland to name just a few—have NOT involved such muffled (“silenced”) weapons. Imagine if these shooters had ready access to devices that muffle the sound of their weapons, maybe not to a “Pfffft” like in the movies, but enough to make the killing less obvious and the shooter harder to localize. How many more would die?
There is a simple reason why these deranged shooters aren’t already using silencers on their weapons: the purchase and ownership of a silencer is highly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934—along with other people-killing devices like full-on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Republicans would like to change that—and they want to hide their intent.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, our soccer-mom-lookalike from eastern Washington (CD-5), the woman who solemnly offers her “thoughts and prayers” after every mass shooting, is a consistent co-sponsor of The Hearing Protection Act. The 2021-2022 version of this bill has 95 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives—every last one of them a Republican. As a shooter myself, McMorris Rodgers’ co-sponsorship of this disingenuously named bill makes me hopping mad. Read the bill. Not only would it remove federal restrictions on the purchase and ownership of silencers, but it would preempt any state and local laws that restrict silencers (See Sec 4). So much for “states rights”—a term that Republicans drag out only when it happens to suit their purpose—e.g. abortion regulations.
Has our smiling soccer mom been duped by the NRA into somehow imagining “The Hearing Protection Act” is actually about protecting our hearing? No, she fully understands what she is co-sponsoring. In May of 2018 at a small Cathy-friendly town hall in Green Bluff, when confronted with the reality of her co-sponsorship of “The Hearing Protection Act” she assured the audience, “I’m definitely going to take a look again.” She also said, “…with everything going on [this was just three months after Parkland] I tend to think that this is…that now is not the right time.” In 2022 she is still a co-sponsor. She knows what she’s doing—and she thinks she can pull the wool over the eyes of enough voters to keep her in office.
Remember McMorris Rodgers’ willful deception as you fill out your ballot this weekend. Vote for Natasha Hill.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
Thanks for reading Indivisible–The High Ground! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
As you vote your ballot for the November 8 election (after you receive it the end of next week) keep in mind the current Spokane County Commissioners’, Al French, Josh Kerns, and Mary Kuney’s, “non-agendized” surprise resolution authorizing Spokane County Prosecutor Larry Haskell to spend resources building a case to sweep Camp Hope. Spending our tax dollars in an effort to justify impeding the progress that is being made at Camp Hope with Washington State money and the sustained efforts local organizations on the ground is not an example of the fiscal conservatism to which local Republicans pretend.
While County officials French, Kerns, Kuney, Haskell, and Knezovich are spending our tax dollars on legal bluster, the executive branch of the government of the City of Spokane under Mayor Woodward has failed miserably on the other side of the fiscal equation. In what should be seen as a bombshell, Luke Baumgarten of RANGE Media broke the news last Tuesday, October 11, that the Woodward administration has left tens of millions of dollars “on the table” that could have been applied to resolving the homelessness issue—this of a mayor elected to “solve” homelessness.
We all should have had a clue that all was not well in the City’s executive branch. In mid September the second promising person hired to lead the City’s “Neighborhoods, Housing and Human Services” Department, John E. Hall III, resigned after just three months. (The prior director lasted seven months.) When, on September 21st, Kip Hill reported in the Spokesman that John Hall was leaving on September 30, the article downplayed the significance of Hall’s departure:
Coddington said Hall’s departure had “nothing to do with” the unfolding conflict over the homeless encampment, noting Hall had “a great opportunity” elsewhere and that Woodward wished him well in his new position.
“It’s an opportunity for him to start his own department, related to housing and community development,” Coddington said.
Turns out it was not so simple. On September 30, his last day on the job, Hall sent a 27-page memo to Mayor Nadine Woodward and City Administrator Johnnie Perkins. In the memo Mr. Hall laid out recommendations for improving the Department and detailing executive branch dysfunction in applying for and administering grant programs. That memo was obtained, analyzed and published by RANGE Media last Tuesday. (Aside: As I’ve come to expect, the Spokesman coverage of the memo, downplayed its significance. The article appeared with a small headline in the lower right hand corner of the second page of the Northwest section two days later on Thursday, October 13. The top of the front page headline that day? The Starbucks on 2nd and Division is closing, oh my!—an opportunity the author, Thomas Clouse, took to mention a recent political ad about a different Starbucks’ closure featured by U.S. Senate candidate Tiffany Smiley’s campaign. Apparently for the Spokesman stumping for Ms. Smiley overshadows legitimate recommendations to fix local government dysfunction. But I digress.)
On the brighter side, on Wednesday, October 12, the Spokesman published a column by Shawn Vestal brilliantly highlighting the undermining actions and fiscal waste of both Spokane County government and the City of Spokane’s executive branch under current elected officials. It is copied below. Read Vestal’s article and remember it as you fill out your ballots.
(RANGE Media subsequently scooped the Spokesman on the Guardian Foundation debacle mentioned in Vestal’s piece. Read it here.)
Here is something you probably won’t hear from the sheriff, the county commissioners [French, Kerns, and Kuney], the prosecutor [Haskell], the mayor [Woodward] or the chief of police [Meidl]: Camp Hope is shrinking, no thanks to any of them.
The state-funded effort to move people from the East Central Neighborhood encampment along Interstate 90 is proceeding, even as the aforementioned public officials grandstand, bluster, threaten and try to undermine it. Around 180 people have left the camp – some to the Trent shelter, some to transitional housing, some to family members, some just away, according to an update on camp conditions by documentarian and camp security official Maurice Smith.
Importantly, the people have not been simply scooted off to recamp under one of the crowded viaducts downtown or along a riverbank.
“While politicians threaten and argue over who should sue who, while offering no actual solutions,” Smith wrote in his update, “we’re moving ahead with the actual solutions our unsheltered homeless friends need to move forward with their lives.”
The Camp Hope population is down from a peak of 623 in July to 443 this week, he said. This comes as the state’s $24 million operation to move the campers into housing continues, though the effort is flocked on all sides by a storm of chaos and confusion sown by the very public officials whose long-running failures brought us to this pass.
Monday’s news that an employee of the Guardian Foundation, which operates two shelters for the city and oversaw the convention center debacle last winter, is believed to have embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars landed like the arrival of another plague in a series of them.
It’s still early, but the case looks like an accountability fiasco, both for the Guardians and the accountability mayor.
With every passing day, some new effort to undermine the success of the state’s work to clear Camp Hope comes from some new corner of local politics – threats to sue, or drive away the homeless, or fine the state, or huff and puff, or whatever. These efforts all amount to politicians stomping their feet and demanding – without any attempt to offer a practical way forward – an immediate, simplistic end to the camp.
This rush to the microphones began with the unhinged letter and news conference a couple weeks ago from Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, who had never even set foot in Camp Hope, threatening to personally drive people out and put them on buses out of town.
This has been accompanied by threats from Mayor Nadine Woodward and then Chief Craig Meidl to use city nuisance laws against the camp – apropos for an administration that seems to regard homeless people as roadside junk. The chorus was then joined by the county commission and Prosecutor Larry Haskell, making their own threats and setting their own absurd deadlines.
All are demanding a faster closure of the camp than is remotely realistic, unless the goal is just to spread people to new homeless camps. There is simply not enough available housing to move them all immediately, and the city’s claims to the contrary are absurd – they are based on the idea that hundreds of people would go to the Trent shelter, well beyond the number of beds there.
It’s hard to know exactly what these blusterers think is going to happen if they get their way. Some of them, no doubt, are in the grip of the wishful-thinking problem with homelessness – the simplistic and satisfying idea that if some stern father figure just puts his foot down, all will be well. Some want to peacock before the election, because running against homeless people is, sadly, a safe way to get votes.
A conspiratorial thinker might wonder whether they see that the state is beginning to make progress – progress that these politicians have done almost nothing to aid and have actually tried to obstruct – and want to claim some credit for making it happen down the road.
Whatever it is, what they have combined to produce is a disastrous failure of community leadership. It compounds years of inaction on homelessness, fosters division instead of unified effort, leans on threats instead of cooperation, and deepens enmity among those who should be partners.
One part of this sorry stew – which bubbles up in whisper campaigns and Facebook rants – has been a narrative smearing those who are actually trying to help bring a positive end to Camp Hope as cynical money grubbers, getting rich on the homeless.
These claims are so common in anti-homelessness circles – and stated explicitly in the sheriff’s letter to the state – that it was really something to learn this week that if anyone affiliated with homeless services had stolen public funds for personal gain, it was a former Guardians employee.
The Guardians have been the mayor’s ride-or-die on homeless services, the recipients of multimillion-dollar contracts to run the Cannon Street shelter and Trent. Months after the plan for the Trent shelter was developed, it remains hardly more than a concrete warehouse, resembling an offseason expo barn at the fairgrounds – a symbol of the deep insincerity of the administration’s efforts.
It’s too soon to say much with certainty about the embezzlement case, but it does seem that the allegations were quite slow to make their way to the right authorities, and they call into question the oversight and level of due diligence practiced by the Guardians and the Woodward administration.
The Guardians apparently saw the first signs of trouble last summer; it wasn’t until the end of September that the police and officials at City Hall were alerted. Yet it was only this week, after two City Council members alerted the public, that the accountability mayor announced she was ordering an internal audit and the police department said it had assigned a detective to the case.
Meanwhile, the difficult, important work of bringing Camp Hope to an effective, humane closure continues. Some campers have been moved into housing, outreach workers continue to identify solutions for those remaining, and security procedures and rules are being enhanced to deal with the very real problems of crime and safety.
The bloviators and blusterers who are rushing out to make demands and stomp their feet will, no doubt, take credit for any progress that occurs at the camp. But make no mistake: The positive steps at Camp Hope are not the result of demand letters and news conferences and false deadlines.
They’re coming from the people on the ground whose efforts the big talkers are doing their best to undermine.
A remarkable Guest Opinion appeared in the Thursday, Sept 29th, Spokesman Review. A hallmark of our system of criminal justice is that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. As a practical matter, it takes time for the judicial system and the judges who preside over the system to render a verdict on that question of guilt. In the meantime, the goal of the system should be to minimize risk to the community while at the same time assuring that the accused makes all the required court appearances for the system to work properly. Being incarcerated as a presumed innocent while waiting for the wheels of justice to turn is inevitably disruptive of a person’s life, the more so the fewer resources an accused person has at their disposal. Lives are put on hold, families and children are left on their own, and jobs are lost.
Whether the accused is returned to the community or detained in jail while awaiting judgement is determined by a judge. That judge relies on the quality and completeness of the information presented by law enforcement, the prosecutor’s office, and the counsel of the accused.
Sitting judges in our system rarely (if ever) speak out publicly. Their focus is on the case before them, in which context they may offer criticism of the quality or completeness of the case presented, but a sitting judge does not weigh in or push back on public statements and accusations tendered by the prosecutor and law enforcement about the overall function of the legal system. A sitting judge who takes a side in such a public controversy risks losing the public’s trust in the fairness of their judgement.
When three retired local judges write a guest opinion calling out the Prosecutor and the Sheriff for making false public statements it deserves to make news, in part because judges still sitting on the bench are constrained.
Remember Judges Murphy, Peterson, and Rodgers’ critical voice when you cast your vote in the Spokane County Prosecutor’s race in November.
By Judges James Murphy, Vance Peterson and John Rodgers
In recent months, Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich and Prosecutor Larry Haskell have criticized our courts regarding bail decisions. They have failed to produce evidence. They have relied upon unsupported accusations and have stated, “It is maybe time to clear the bench.” Under the Washington Constitution, all accused persons are guaranteed a right to bail.
The bail may not be excessive.
Bail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to assure the defendant’s compliance is illegal.
The day-to-day mechanics of bail decisions ensure that fair, legal decisions are made. The decisions are made in public, recorded hearings. A neutral judge makes an individualized decision based on the facts presented at the hearing. The prosecutor and the defendant each have a right to present evidence.
The judge must release the defendant if no charge is filed or if the evidence presented is not sufficient. The rule is carefully drawn to honor the presumption of innocence and to ensure public safety.
In joining Knezovich’s criticism, Haskell has publicly stated that the Constitution does not provide for the presumption of innocence. He disingenuously omits that our laws certainly do. RCW 9A.04.100 states that “Every person charged with the commission of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”
The prosecutor also omits court rules which require judges to release charged persons if they promise to return for court.
There are two exceptions.
First, if the judge determines that release without conditions will not reasonably assure the accused person’s future court appearance, the court is required to impose the least restrictive condition that will assure appearance. Second, if the prosecutor shows a substantial danger that the accused will commit a violent crime, intimidate witnesses or obstruct justice, the judge may impose conditions to prevent those, and a violation of those conditions is cause for immediate arrest.
A bail bond may be required only if the judge determines that other conditions are not sufficient.
But Haskell requests money bail in every case, without support of individualized evidence, and relies instead on a rote, check-box form.
This is laughably inadequate and risks the credibility of the prosecutor’s office. It is not a reasoned legal argument but only weak political cover.
While Knezovich and Haskell complain about bail decisions, they have never sought review in the Court of Appeals. Never. Approximately 75% of the persons in jail are being held while waiting for trial.
The argument that the court is releasing too many persons is false.
Knezovich makes scatter- gunned accusations on pretrial release decisions. We have been able to find only four in which he actually identified a case. In two, the defendants were fully compliant with court orders. In one, the prosecutor agreed to release. In the fourth, Knezovich complained that a judge released a known thief. But that information was not given to the judge.
Knezovich told the reporter more than he told the judge.
Nevertheless, Knezovich has continued with theatrical outrage rather than facts.
A file-by-file examination of the first 450 criminal filings from 2021 has shown that six, or 1.3% of the defendants, have been arrested for violent crimes during pretrial release, resulting in one minor injury.
In Federal Court, 183 persons had detention hearings in 2021. Only 1.4% were re-arrested with new charges.
Our court system is a wonder. Both sides present evidence. Proceedings are open to the public. Records are kept.
Decisions are made according to law. Appeals are available.
Bail hearings are difficult.
Honorable judges are whipsawed by the commands of law, the liberty of citizens presumed innocent, and the real concerns of protection of the community.
But Knezovich and Haskell show contempt for the courts.
They criticize without facts.
They fail to get evidence to courts. They fail to appeal but instead make public announcements, free from fact checking and accountability.
In their world, an arrested person should be kept in jail on their say so. Woe to a judge who applies the law. In their world, there is no presumption of innocence, only a presumption of guilt. Good luck to the citizen who is caught in their clutches.
Judges James Murphy and Vance Peterson are retired from the Spokane County Superior Court. Magistrate Judge John Rodgers is retired from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington.
County Officials Seem Intent on Hindering Efforts to Combat Homelessness
“Don’t stand in the stairways, don’t block up the halls…” Bob Dylan
Thursday morning last week I attended the monthly meeting of the Spokane Homeless Coalition held in the open air just north of the cooling tent at Camp Hope. The presentation was an eight person panel discussion led by a moderator—all of them, including the moderator, were people directly doing the work of connecting the people of Camp Hope with the tools to become better housed.
Later that day at least some media coverage seemed to shift in a positive direction: KHQ (Q6) and KREM2 both highlighted progress made at the camp by community efforts.
Conspicuously absent from the meeting (and from the later tour of Camp Hope) were Spokane County Sheriff Knezovich; the three current Spokane County Commissioners, Al French, Josh Kerns, and Mary Kuney; and Spokane County Prosecutor Larry Haskell. Instead, Sheriff Knezovich contributes media-highlighted threats and hot air while French, Kerns, and Kuney vote to spend our tax dollars on a lawsuit against the Washington State Department of Transportation—the agency that owns the property on which Camp Hope is situated. Knezovich is the point man for this political grandstanding ahead of the November election, but he cannot act to spend our property tax money on a lawsuit without the quiet, less-than-transparent cooperation of Commissioners French, Kerns, and Kuney. Then the Spokane County Prosecutor’s office under Larry Haskell will actually spend our tax money and their effort on constructing the lawsuit against the State. Wouldn’t you think they’d have better things to do?
City of Spokane City Council President Breean Beggs and Councilperson Betsy Wilkerson (in whose city council district Camp Hope lies) attended the Camp Hope meeting. Mayor Woodward, of course, along with her allies on the council, Michael Cathcart and Jonathan Bingle, stayed away.
The contrast between the engagement of some members of the City of Spokane government and the actions from afar of the Board of County Commissioners, the County Sheriff, and the County Prosecutor speaks volumes. Instead of putting their shoulders to the wheel to actually work as a community on the issue of homelessness in our region the County Officials, especially, are actively engaged in spending our money to hinder the efforts now under way, meanwhile feeding suspicion, hate, and othering for electoral advantage. It is time to reject that approach.
Vote them out in November. Let’s have a County government that engages to help rather than spends our money on posturing and hindering. County Commissioner candidates Maggie Yeats, Amber Waldref, and Chris Jordan will foster transparency, engagement, and mutual effort to solve problems, not hinder solutions. County Prosecutor candidate Deb Conklin (running against incumbent Larry Haskell) won’t willingly waste our county tax dollars on frivolous, counterproductive intra-governmental lawsuits.
Below I’ve copied the excellent article by Carl Segerstrom of RANGE Media, which fleshes out this county governance issue. I urge you to sign up to receive (and financially support) RANGE’s coverage of local issues.
The county’s resolution to sue the state is the latest in a long-line of decisions that spurned public engagement.
Over the last month, RANGE Media developed a Civics newsletter to keep the community up-to-date on public meetings and political happenings. Each week we spend hours combing through public documents in an effort to distill and highlight important public events, forums and meetings. The goal: to raise awareness about how people in power make decisions and empower the community to make their voice heard.
So, it came as a surprise to us when the county announced a resolution authorizing the county prosecutor to sue the state in order to build the legal case for the county to sweep Camp Hope.
Nothing on the meeting agenda this Tuesday indicated the county would be discussing the encampment. The only faint public notice was the agenda for Monday’s strategy session, which includes a standing “Enforcement Action or Pending/Potential Litigation” agenda item and made no mention of the encampment. No one hoping to advocate for a different outcome, or provide public support for the county’s action, could’ve known the county was considering a resolution to sweep the camp. So, no one showed up.
On Tuesday, after 17 minutes in executive session, Commissioner Josh Kerns moved to approve the resolution — marking the first time the county’s resolution was spoken of in a public forum.
After Kerns made his motion and Commissioner Mary Kuney seconded, Commissioner Al French asked if there’s any discussion. The commissioners didn’t have anything to say in the public meeting about their decision to back Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich’s plan to sweep Camp Hope before passing the resolution.
After no public debate or discussion among the board, French made a call for public comment on the resolution. “Is there anybody online?” he asks the staff. French made a second and third call for public comment — again to an almost empty room with no one from the public online. “Seeing nobody come to the microphone, I’m going to close public testimony.” The opening for public testimony lasted about 13 seconds.
The result: once the prosecutor’s office files the paperwork, Spokane County taxpayers will be paying to sue our state.
If the county prevails, local resources from the Sheriff’s Department will be used to disband the camp just two days after the general election — so long as Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich’s November 10 timeline doesn’t change. The sheriff has made overtures that he’d bill the state for any costs the county incurs. So far, the state has brushed off similar reimbursement requests from the city of Spokane, making that outcome far from a done deal. The state has allocated more than $20 million of the more than $24 million in funding it originally committed to rehousing the people at Camp Hope, and is now projecting that it will spend more than $25 million total.
Following months of brinkmanship between the state and Mayor Nadine Woodward’s administration, the county’s decision to follow Knezovich’s lead and enter the Camp Hope fray further complicates any hopes of an orderly disbandment of the encampment.
Simply put, the people living at the encampment have become pawns in a political chess game. To make matters worse, at no point have any of the political leaders shown the initiative to involve the general public in the process of removing Camp Hope and providing a path to housing for the people living there.
Instead, the public has only been able to access information on this issue through local media. While we all endeavor to keep the public informed, we don’t have all the answers, we have deadlines and, at the end of the day, it’s not the media who have the authority to make these decisions, it’s not the media who have a legal responsibility to inform and allow discussion of those decisions, and it is certainly not the media who must answer for them.
That’s why it’s so disheartening to see the way decisions around Camp Hope have been made. The closed door meetings, press releases and press conferences are a poor substitute for authentic public engagement. Throughout this process, the public has deserved a better public forum that allows people to get information from official sources and empowers them to raise concerns and propose solutions.
The only place this regularly happens is monthly Spokane Homeless Coalition meetings, like the one held just today. In general, those meetings are geared toward members of the service provider community who are working on solutions for the unhoused community day in, day out.
Today, the homeless coalition brought out more than 150 people to Camp Hope. Panelists of camp residents, nonprofit leaders and peer navigators described the progress being made and the multitude of challenges people face moving out of homelessness. They also described progress being made to move people off the camp (Julie Garcia said more than 130 people have been moved into housing in recent weeks) and pleaded for time to let the people working with the Camp Hope move people through the challenging process of getting into housing and for some mental health and addiction treatment.
Several council members were in attendance. County electeds were not. Instead they were across town in another closed door meeting about this very issue. It’s hard to understand how they can continue their drive-by policy-making without taking the time to hear from this community and the people serving them.
Lacking real engagement, the vacuum of public outreach has been filled with anger, resentment, and at least one lawsuit. The closest thing to a public meeting about Camp Hope that we’ve seen was a tinder box of frustration and misinformation as riled up West Hills neighbors came to vent their frustrations about more transitional housing services being sited in their neighborhood. While people were misinformed about how the facility will be run (it’s not going to be a low-barrier shelter), they had every right to be frustrated with a process that didn’t include any community engagement until after plans — submitted by the city and accepted by the state — were well on their way to being finalized.
Here, state and local leaders must own their responsibility for not building public engagement into the right-of-way funding program. Granted, this was always something that needed to move faster than your average bureaucratic planning process. The Commerce Department gave local municipalities and the county a month to come up with proposals to rehome the people living in the encampment. Clearly, that timeline precludes a ton of outreach and consensus building.
Still, there was room to invite the public into the decision-making. There could have been city, county and state sponsored town halls and forums to build awareness around the challenges that both government entities and the people living at the encampment face in moving forward towards housing solutions. Instead, conversations were siloed and the public was left to consume the dribs and drabs that entered the public awareness through leaked documents, media reports and scattered public statements.
Now, with winter approaching and elections about a month away, the public at large is left with little to go on when it comes to the future of Camp Hope. Instead of seeing plans and timelines from the state about what the next steps will be and when we can expect them to happen, we’re quickly seeing the future of Camp Hope devolve into political posturing and threat making.
It’s a sad and unnecessary reality that we’ll continue trying to keep the public informed on. But, you shouldn’t have to hear it exclusively from us. Local and state leaders owe Spokane a public voice they haven’t afforded the community so far when it comes to Camp Hope.
Bob McCaslin’s showcase strength as a candidate for the office of Spokane County Auditor is not his demonstrated competence for managing a large, detail-oriented office. His primary qualification is his devotion to the election fraud conspiracy theory carried forward, without evidence, from the 2020 election. McCaslin is running on the strength of his ability to cast doubt and distrust (even as he publicly downplays it), not on his competence.
Who is this Challenger?
Judging by the biography on his campaign website, Bob McCaslin Jr.’s prior work experience is not in management but rather as a teacher in grades K through 5 in Spokane Valley, and as a volunteer at the Union Gospel Mission and at His Place Evangelical Free Church in Post Falls. In 2014 McCaslin Junior saw an opportunity to enter politics. His father, Bob McCaslin Sr., died in 2011 after serving as the well-respected conservative Republican State Senator from LD4 (Spokane valley north to Mt. Spokane) for thirty years. McCaslin Junior sailed into a State Representative seat in same legislative district, besting an exclusively Republican field of candidates while garnering 58% of the vote. His victory was arguably based on the name recognition built up by his dad.
McCaslin’s performance as a legislator was more of a follower than a leader. The vast majority of bills on which McCaslin is listed as one of the sponsors in the current session are of the “honoring, recognizing, celebrating, or acknowledging” variety, not substantive legislation. The one piece of substantive legislation that stands out is WA HB2115 “Improving election integrity, security, and accountability for Washington voters”. HB2115 stands out in part on account of McCaslin’s co-sponsors: Rob Chase (R-LD4), Robert Sutherland (R), and Vicki Kraft (R). McCaslin, Chase, and Sutherland have been tireless promoters of the Trumpian election fraud narrative, even as the public face these and all other local Republicans put on this pig is to blandly suggest they just want to “restore trust”. “Oh, no, it is not we who doubt the integrity of the Washington State election system: the doubters are other people in need of reassurance.”
Here’s McCaslin Junior’s publicstatement to the Spokesman meant to reach people who don’t share his hidden views on election fraud:
“Really, I don’t have any proof of wrongdoing,” McCaslin told the paper. “I’m not running for this because I think there are serious problems. I just think I can contribute really positively to this.”
That isn’t just poppycock, it’s a lie.
In the Washington State legislature McCaslin Junior’s seat-mate from LD4 from 2014 to 2020 was the now nationally infamous Matt Shea, author of The Biblical Basis for War, a road map to insurrection. Shea is a theocratic firebrand who now serves as pastor of On Fire Ministries & Kingdom Christian Academy in Spokane. When Shea and McCaslin Junior were seat-mates from LD4, McCaslin Junior was a consistent co-sponsor of Shea’s billsto establish Shea’s theocratic “State of Liberty” by splitting the State of Washington in two along the crest of the Cascade Mountains. Now that Shea is gone from the legislature, McCaslin Junior, with just three other state representatives, carries on the tradition of annual sponsorship of Shea’s State of Liberty Bill.
McCaslin Junior’s devotion to Shea is in defiance of McCaslin’s well-respected and long-serving father. When then Washington State Senator from LD4, Bob McCaslin Senior, resigned in 2011 for reasons of deteriorating health, he wrote a terse message to the Spokane County Commissioners tasked with appointing his replacement: “I wish to state that under no circumstances would I support Matthew Shea for any public office.” At the time Matt Shea was only in his second year as the State Representative to the legislature from LD4 (Spokane valley to Mt. Spokane). It took McCaslin Jr.’s father only those two years serving together with Shea in Olympia to recognize the danger that his son’s later seat mate (starting in 2014) presented. Yet McCaslin Jr has evidently become Shea’s legislative lapdog.
The Civics of the Office of County Auditor:
Mr. McCaslin is applying to the voters for election to an office with a broad range of administrative responsibility. In the State of Washington County Auditors are tasked by state law (RCW 36.22.010) with a multitude of detail-oriented duties summarized here from the Spokane County website (the bold is mine):
The Spokane County Auditor’s Office is responsible for the administration of the Recording, Financial Services, Motor Vehicle Licensing and Elections Divisions.
The primary functions of these diverse divisions are the recording and preservation of all public records which are required by law to be recorded, the integrated financial management of all activities of Spokane County, conduct all Elections for the county in accordance with state law and the issuance of vehicle and vessel licenses for the County.
Other races [forums] that had been planned that could not be held due to League’s “empty chair” policy since only the first named candidate committed to attend:
Spokane County Auditor – Vicky Dalton & Bob McCaslin (cancelled after confirming)
This is becoming a pattern that suggests that McCaslin is afraid his ignorance might be exposed.
In April Al Merkel of Spokane Valley Speaks podcasts offered interviews to both the incumbent Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton and candidate Bob McCaslin. Ms. Dalton demonstrated her deep understanding of the duties of a county auditor in a series of two interviews, each roughly an hour long. You can listen to them by clicking Part 1 and Part 2. McCaslin’s response to the offer of an interview with Mr. Merkel speaks volumes about McCaslin’s lack of understanding of the job for which he is applying to county voters: The Spokane Valley Speaks website states, “Candidate Bob McCaslin, also running for Auditor, was invited to interview as well. He initially agreed but withdrew after receiving the questions which were the same as those used for this interview.”
Listen in to others of Mr. Merkel’s podcasts. His interviews are generally even-handed and open-ended. He offers a platform, not a grilling. Why didn’t McCaslin consent to an interview? Was it for fear of exposing his ignorance of the duties of the job of Spokane County Auditor, his association with the extremist Matt Shea wing of the local Republican Party, or his active promotion of the bogus Lindell/Trump election fraud narrative—or all of the above?
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. That the SpokaneGOP chooses to actually endorse McCaslin Junior for Spokane County Auditor, combined with its general support for the election fraud narrative, is a testament to the Republican sellout to extremism. I would understand and respect not endorsing either candidate—the Republican Party is, after all, the Republican Party. Endorsing McCaslin reminds me of variation of the theme of the old saying, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to endorse and remove all doubt.”
To build or not to build—a new Spokane County Jail—that is the question that keeps popping up in our community—as though it were the best way to address crime. Outgoing Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich’s cites not getting a new Jail built as his biggest regret. That is far too narrow a focus.
The trouble is that most of us, including me, have had only a rudimentary understanding of how Spokane County Detention Services fits into the complex system of prosecutors, judges, courts, and state and federal prisons that we collectively refer to as our criminal justice system. In my youth I watched too many westerns in which justice consisted of apprehending the inevitably rotten-to-the-core bad guy and throwing him in jail. Real life is seldom so simple.
The Spokane County Jail pictured above (as seen looking south from W. Gardner, not the usual way it is depicted in news articles) is one of two facilities that make up Spokane County Detention Services (the other is Geiger Corrections Center).
Spokane County Detention Services is comprised of both the downtown Spokane County Jail pictured above and the Geiger Corrections Center. It is tempting to think of the two facilities as a warehouse in which guilty criminals are simply incarcerated. If that were true (which it is not, as we shall see), then simply building a bigger County Jail to put all the criminals in would be a logical conclusion. In reality, however, Spokane County Detention Services is best thought of as a sort of holding area in the workings of a complex criminal justice system.
The number of folks on the “inmate roster” of Detention Services’ holding tank (including both facilities) is variable, determined by several inputs and outputs. The number of people booked into the system by law enforcement (with the aid of the prosecutor’s office) for alleged violations of law is the major input. The speed and accuracy with which lawyers, courts, and judges process the cases against these people determines the output: either to other institutions (e.g. the state penitentiary), treatment facilities, or to freedom.
Broadly speaking, the workings of the lawyers, courts, and judges do as much to determine the size of the inmate population (and pressure to build a new Jail) as the arrests and delivery of accused persons to Detention Services by law enforcement. To make the whole system work better, to get better control of crime, and to reduce the population of inmates and the pressure to build a new jail we might (among other things) invest in improvements to the court system.
The Spokane County Superior Court currently has County funding for twelve judgeships. The Superior Court manages many of the cases of the inmates held in the two Detention Services facilities, and the Superior courts are chronically backlogged. This has been a problem for decades. In 1997 the Washington State legislature authorized Spokane County (via its County Commission) to fund a thirteenth Spokane County Superior Court Judgeship. That judgeship might have relieved some of the jail crowding by improving the output side of the jail population equation. But…for the last 25 years…the Spokane County Commissioners, dominated by Republicans consistently in favor of spending money for a new jail, have utterly failed to move forward on this improvement.
Maggie Yates is running against incumbent Commissioner Al French for the District 5 seat (SW Spokane County) on the new five member Spokane County Commission. Last Friday (September 30) she took on Mr. French in a debate hosted by the Rotary of Spokane. (You can watch it here.) The very first question (starting at 8:05 in the video) was: Would you commit to provide funding for the 13th judgeship? Mr. French’s answer was twofold: First he blamed the Covid pandemic dislocation for the backlog, even though the 13th judgeship was approved 25 years ago at a time when there was already a backlog. Next, he informed the audience that it would be prohibitively expensive: not just a judges salary, but support staff and a whole new courtroom (at, he said, $1M dollar capital cost). Of course, he neglected to discuss how those expenses would compare to the cost of the new downtown County Jail he favors. (The current Jail was built in 1986 at a cost of $22M.) Ms. Yates’ response (at 10:00 in the video) was to cite 25 years of inaction on this judgeship as a glaring failure of planning on the part of the County Commissioners. Mr. French has had twelve years on the (currently) three person Spokane County Commission during which he might have addressed this issue.
Do we need a new jail? The current Spokane County Jail opened in July 1986 as a state-of-the-art facility designed to hold 460 inmates, each with their own cell. As had happened several times in previous decades, it quickly filled. By 1995 it held 555 inmates, by 2004 there were 690. Calculating the number of inmates currently in the County Jail is slightly complicated since, for a number of years, some inmates under Spokane County Detention Services are held at Geiger Corrections Center (situated just south of Geiger Field (GEG) between Geiger Blvd and the airport runways). According to the very useful monthly Spokane County Jail Population Snapshot (a bit of a misnomer, since the data covers both facilities, not just the Jail) Detention Services held a total of 844 inmates as of August 31, 2022. Extracting data from the Snapshot suggests that 515 inmates subject to the local Spokane court systems were then held at the downtown Spokane County Jail—along with nearly all of 143 inmates from “Other Jurisdictions”, including the federal government (U.S. Marshalls), for a total of 658. That is almost 200 bodies (43%) over the design capacity of 460 of the existing Jail. Another 179 inmates were held at Geiger Correctional (although they, too, could be stuffed into the downtown Jail in the next couple weeks on account of staffing issues).
Naively, I thought that most of the inmate population housed by Spokane County Detention Services (both facilities) consisted of people already sentenced to serve time there. That is almost completely wrong. According to the August 31, 2022, Snapshot, 543 inmates were categorized as “Pre-Trial – No Hold”, meaning that these are “individuals with pending charges who do not have a detainer order and could be immediately released on bond.” If you’re curious, scroll through the Inmate Roster and check out the details of those who are “bondable”. Furthermore, the term “Pre-Trial” is itself a bit of a misnomer, since only a small fraction of inmates ever have a trial of the sort most of us think of. Much more common is a “plea deal”. The defendant, threatened with the severest charges the Spokane County Prosecutor’s office under County Prosecutor Larry Haskell can apply to the alleged crime, agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than face losing a jury trial and being sentenced under the higher charge. Again, on August 31, 543inmates of the 844 total held by Detentions Services were “innocent until proven guilty” pending action by the justice system.
Sixty-nine more inmates were “Pre-Trial – Hold”, meaning they are not bondable and would not be released even if bond were posted, i.e. a judge has decided these folks should not be let out on the street.
Only 81 of the 844 inmates were post sentencing. Detention Services only keeps inmates who have been sentenced to serve less than a year, almost always for some form of misdemeanor. All those with longer sentences are eventually sent off to the prison system of the Washington State Department of Corrections.
Bottom line: The majority of inmates occupying space at Spokane County Detention Services (the County Jail and Geiger Corrections, collectively) are held there pending judgement by the criminal justice system—and many of those waiting inmates could be free (and not a threat to society) while awaiting judgement—if they could “make bail” or if other means were available to be sure they re-appear for their court date. Providing the funding for a thirteenth Superior Court Judge would certainly help by speeding up the process that now expensively detains hundreds of inmates in legal limbo in crowded circumstances bordering on inhumane. Building a new Spokane County “downtown” Jail without funding a thirteenth Superior Court Judgeship would be getting the cart before the horse.
It is time to understand, invest in, and adjust the entire criminal justice system in Spokane County—from law enforcement, Detention Services, bail reform, and support and diversion options to expanding and speeding up the judicial process. If that includes funding and building a new state-of-the-art County Jail, then so be it—but let’s not pretend that a new Jail is the only solution. As a community we will pay either way: either with the economic and social cost of a frustrating level of crime or with the cost to make the necessary investments to improve the system.
That Commissioner French can advocate for a new Jail while pretending that funding a 13th Superior Court Judgeship is too expensive is a sign of the current Spokane County Board of Commissioners sclerotic thinking. It is time to stretch our understanding and involvement. This November vote for Maggie Yates, the candidate in District 5 with detailed knowledge of the local criminal justice landscape; Chris Jordan in District 1; Amber Waldref in District 2; and Mary Kuney in District 4.
Is he demonizing the homeless for future electoral advantage?
For an outgoing Spokane County Sheriff, Ozzie Knezovich has been acting the part of a political attack dog. He’s been strutting and puffing and making local, regional, and national news with his threat to “clear” Camp Hope. He even had a spot on “Fox and Friends” where Ozzie, sporting his uniform, paints a picture of a whole neighborhood cowering in fear around Camp Hope. Without evidence he accuses “Democrat activists” of lining their pockets with money coming from the state. Welcome to Republican attack dog tactics: lie, stoke fear, point fingers, and shift blame. Collaboration? Not publicly; collaboration doesn’t stir the base. Confrontation? You bet.
Ozzie refuses an invitation to visit Camp Hope, the camp he threatens to forcibly dismantle, but he makes news taking a walk in a non-existent homeless camp along the Spokane River in Spokane Valley to make a political point against the candidate challenging Ozzie’s anointed successor as sheriff.
I am so far unable to verify it, but, according to a post on Nextdoor, Ozzie plans to make more political hay by speaking at (outside?) City Hall at 4PM today (Monday, October 3) in advance of the 6PM City Council meeting. If he appears, you can bet he will have alerted the media to cover it—and the some local media will step right up and report his drama, bluster, and unsubstantiated accusations with eye-catching headlines.
Sheriff Knezovich announced in 2019 that he would not run for another term. Instead, KXLY reported “Sheriff Knezovich says plans to go back to school for his master’s and eventually pursue a career teaching college students”. Ozzie is only 59. He had a small heart attack and a stent placed early in 2022, but he says he’s not planning to retire, he’s just “shifting gears”. More recently, he said he would be moving to Wyoming to be near family, including children and grandchildren (he grew up Rock Springs and Superior, Wyoming).
It was no surprise in early July 2022 there were multiple media reports that “the Republican candidate for Sheriff [Dwane Pacheco] of Sweetwater County in Wyoming [the county that includes Rock Springs] announced Knezovich would serve as his Undersheriff if he wins.” (The italics are mine.) In the Wyoming Primary Election held August 16, two Republicans, Ozzie’s friend, Mr. Pacheco, and Mr. Grossnickle ran. Mr. Pacheco lost badly with 2456 to Grossnickle’s 6905 votes. Since no Democrat ran in that race, I presume (but find it is devilishly difficult to nail this down), that only Mr. Grossnickle will appear on the General Election ballot on November 8—and Ozzie’s friend, Mr. Pacheco, is out of the running.
One wonders if Ozzie Knezovich’s plans for 2023 were unsettled by Pacheco’s electoral loss. Is Knezovich using his remaining three months in office as Spokane County Sheriff as an issue platform from which to stake out a position (tough guy, law-and-order, Democrats are evil grifters) on which to run for a local office in the 2023 municipal elections? Knezovich is a politician. Arguably, part of what has kept him in office in the past has been a willingness to engage Democrats with some respect—but, now, like other local Republicans, Ozzie is in low-fact political attack mode—and I, for one, have lost most of the respect for him that I once harbored. May he go quietly into the Wyoming sunset—but don’t bet on it.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. I do have to give Knezovich credit for this: he personally endorsed Vicky Dalton (D) to continue as Spokane County Auditor over Bob McCaslin Jr. (R). Even as he fumes about “progressives”, Democrats, and “antifa” he also has taken a stand against the Matt Shea contingent of the local Republican Party—which includes Dalton’s election denying challenger. Knezovich’s presentation,“The Threats We Face”, in October 2019 still stands as a rare example of a local Republican standing up to the militant right wing of the Republican Party.
