1. Rumor is that mayoral candidate Mike McGinn is delivering his anti-waterfront tunnel mailings to many households twice—failing to notice when two people live in the same place, or not “householding,” to use the political jargon. (In targeting mail, you want to figure out if a couple is married, for example, and just target the husband or the wife.)
The upshot could be that McGinn is wasting nearly half the money he’s spending on mail—around $35,000 so far, according to his latest campaign-disclosure reports.
2. Speaking of political mail, if you’ve voted in a recent election, you’re almost certain to receive one of more than 100,000 mail pieces being distributed by the plastics industry, which is fighting a 20-cent fee on plastic bags that’s on the August 18 ballot.
The mail blitz, which is costing the Astroturf campaign more than $100,000, is being coordinated by a Seattle company that has worked for pro-gambling groups in a half-dozen states, for tort reform, and against the labeling of genetically modified foods.
3. Wow: The Seattle Times endorses police-accountability watchdog Pete Holmes over incumbent City Attorney Tom Carr. They cite one issue: Carr’s record on open government.
4. The report we posted right after our interview with mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan on Friday caused a mini-ruckus in the comments because Mallahan criticized Mayor Greg Nickels’ decision to make the city’s neighborhoods department focus on racial issues (he also criticized the lack of results.)
Comments about race can get tricky fast. But they also tend to drown out other stuff. One thing we found noteworthy about the Mallahan interview was this: He criticized the South Lake Union streetcar as a sop to Paul Allen and Vulcan, calling it “a $50 million toy.” But in May , Mallahan told PubliCola he thought the trolley was a good idea.
5. PubliCola will be rolling out our endorsements in the August 18 all-mail primary throughout the day today. For those who weren’t reading over the weekend—judging from the lively comments threads, an awful lot of you were (nerds!)— check out our interviews with four of the mayoral candidates: Mallahan , Jan Drago , McGinn , and Nickels .
Carr hasn’t gotten any endorsements to speak of except Mark Sidran, the cops group and that 34th district vote resulting from packing the room with city employees.
Yes, the Government is on his side! Seems like they understand his philosphy as expressed he told it to the Seattle Times, he’s for the Government, not for us, the people.
(Holmes got into this race due to his experience fighting government when he served on the police oversight committee.)
A bulldog serving government masters is just a bully.
16 years of Sidran/Carr is enough.
So far, every piece of candidate mail I’ve received has been householded — except for mail from McGinn & O’Brien. Sign of a poorly executed campaign, or just vaguely ironic? You decide.
What I think is happening is that McGinn and O’Brien are “householding”, but they are doing it by name and not by address. So, Dick and Jane Smith are only getting one piece, but Dick Smith and Jane Wilson are getting 2 pieces.
Man, you guys are good. You have mastered the art of the “tease”. For weeks now, we have been waiting with anticipation for your endorsements.
And now, we will soon get them.
This will be bittersweet. But, there will be plenty of more “teases” as time goes on.
I love it.
Who, pray tell, is the Seattle company doing the ground work for the plastics industry (and other “causes”)?
@3 I was wondering if that was the situation, and it does map to my household’s experience. 2 different last names, 2 copies of the same mailpiece. Interesting however that no other candidates or issues yet have made the same decision.
I get that McGinn & O’Brien are minimizing the # of unrelated roommates and voters in un-numbered rental units who get inadvertently householded by more aggressive algorithm, but I’m not convinced it’s worth the cost of so many doubled-up pieces to all the 2-last name households they’re targeting, which must be relatively numerous in the city. Mail is an expensive and scarce resource for a campaign, so you’d think the greenish candidates would know how to ration it more effectively.
Dudes, it’s almost 9:30am. WHERE IS THE LOVE?!
I have suprised (given all their howling about how green they are) that on the mailers I have gotten from McGinn and O’Brien there is no note about the sourcing of the cardstock material and what type of ink they used to print them.
we got two mcginn mailers for our household, not so smart! however, i thought it was pretty smart.
I wonder what percentage of Seattle couples have different last names. I bet it is high and higher than the national average.
i’ve already voted..without publicola guidance
!
Nickels and Israel can each add one to their tally.
The Times is more than a little bit of the mark: first the LGBT employee affinity group is sponsored by SPU, the “anti-gay employee” works for City Light. The affinity group isn’t suing the city, instead they are seeking an injunction to prevent records disclosure. They wouldn’t even have known of the homophobe’s request if the city hadn’t taken the optional step of providing third party notification.
As for Carr protecting privacy of city employees, he was paraphrased in a June 17 Times article “while he would prefer not to disclose the names of meeting attendees, state law is very clear. Virtually everything the city does is of public interest to someone”.
They are suing the city or more precisely individual members of the group. A suit is filed against the city to prevent the release of the information and a temporary injunction is requested to prevent the disclosure before the verdict is in.
My partner and I have each received McGinn items. However, the campaign doesn’t really know that we are a couple; we could just as easily be roommates who don’t share mail.
Arguably, it’s not very ‘environmental’ but should each voter should be treated as an individual, even if they’re in the same house?
@12: If, indeed, “state law is very clear,” and “virtually everything the city does is of public interest to someone,” then why has the City Attorney done so little to improve City compliance with the Public Records Act?
Indeed, why did the City Attorney’s office recently advise the City Council to exempt itself from the Public Records Act’s requirement that it make an online list of the kinds of City records available to the public?
A state auditor report critical of the City’s handling of public records requests last year forced the City to respond earlier this Spring. The City Attorney could have used this moment as an opportunity to push the City Council to improve transparency. Instead it just advised the Council on how to defend itself from making even the most minor changes to how it does business.
As a result, Seattle is far behind other cities on open government issues. We still have 36 different City departments, each with its own sets of rules for overseeing compliance with the Public Records Act, with minimal coordination between them or outside oversight. If you appeal how a department responds to your records request, the appeal goes to the head of that department, who kicks it back to the very people who rejected you in the first place.
I wrote an op-ed for the Seattle Times about this, as part of an attempt to pressure the City Council to do more. This is a policy issue, not just a legal issue. And in this case the City Attorney’s office simply did not do enough to push for open government.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008937006_opinb28griffey.html
McGinn and OBrien obviously made the decision to treat people at the same address with different names as individuals and not make assumptions. It’s not really that suprising, considering they both have a management style of “inclusion”.
Pete Holmes rocks. Good on the Times. Holmes has all the democratic endorsements except for the 34th – Carr’s home district. The rule of law, transparency, open government and accountability are the big winners with Holmes as City Attorney. That means the police will be safer, the public will be safer and the city’s budget will be healthier.
Ha ha @16, i really don’t think if they had known they would have wasted the money, my guess is an oversight. And I really don’t think ‘inclusion’ is the right word for McGinn. He makes up his mind and you can’t tell him any different (and i respect that!)..i.e. tunnel..i.e. roads/transit.
@18 Facts are it was a conscious decision. Your guess is wrong. Clearly, you don’t have much insight or familiarity with McGinn’s leadership or management style. He makes up his mind, with great collaboration (that’s the inclusion part, see?) and attention to facts and sticks with it. Then executes and measures results. And will change his position when new facts become available. That’s a good thing.
What I think is happening is that McGinn and O'Brien are “householding”, but they are doing it by name and not by address. So, Dick and Jane Smith are only getting one piece, but Dick Smith and Jane Wilson are getting 2 pieces.