Recently State Attorney General Rob McKenna announced that the proposed sale of the NW's largest private utility Puget Sound Energy to an Australian led international investment group would be challenged. PSE is the NW's largest privately owned utility - number two, curiously, was the former Enron holding, Portland General.
This AG action has State ramifications relevant to our largest public capital decisions, even the current gubernatorial contest.
The historical role of PSE as corporate citizen in this region is beyond the scope of this commentary, but it is worthwhile to note that is significant. The local ownership of this utility - many, many of them customers is the foundation for that importance. The symbolism of AG McKenna's actions shouldn't be underestimated.
In stating that this proposed sale is contrary to the 'public interest' Mr. McKenna, in my estimation is advancing the practice of law in Washington State as much as he is protecting the interests of the consumers and shareholders that make this place their home.
The public interest should be defended with equal fervor as is the private interest, but the question arises - what is the public interest? Perhaps most importantly is the question of WHEN it is determined.
Certainly the corporate welfare queens would have us all believe that they are acting in the public interest from the minute they deem it worthwhile to request tax funding, but I would disagree, strongly.
A great case illustrating the fine details of this point can be seen in a recent editorial by Aubrey Davis, chair of the 520 Planning Committee.
(12/11/08 picture, added 12/12)
In this op-ed piece Mr. Davis argues that the decision on the number of lanes for the 520 bridge has already been made and takes Republican Gubernatorial challenger Dino Rossi to task on that basis.
I disagree.
And it is not without the highest amount of respect for Mr. Davis, the pioneering early president of the model HMO, Group Health. As a forward looking business leader ranks high in the business history of this State, arguably second only to Bill Boeing in the deliverance of results.
I'll leave it to Rossi to make the case for expansion - though my mind is not made up, this issue is exactly the sort of thing that should be part of the Gubernatorial debate - it is through such PUBLIC DEBATE that the public interest is actually defined.
Though Mr. Davis's political attack is not particularly negative it is a position that can be easily extended to be so - and it certainly has in this area. Prior to a vote and/or bond issuance the subect is still very much subject to debate. THE PUBLIC INTEREST PRIOR TO THE FINALIZATION OF A PUBLICALLY FUNDED PROJECT IS THE DISCUSSION INCLUDING THE 'PROTECTION' OF THE RESPONSIBLE PARTICIPANTS.
ANY PROJECT PROPONENT WHO CLAIMS THAT A RESPONSIBLE PARTICIPANT IS ACTING CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST PRIOR TO THE FINAL DECISION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFIED FROM ANY FURTHER PARTICIPATION.
IF A PROJECT IS FUNDED THROUGH A PROCESS THAT INCLUDED THIS BEHAVIOR THE PROJECT PROPONENTS, CONTRACTORS, AND MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES ARE LIABLE FOR THE FULL COST OF THE PROJECT.
ANY "INDEMNIFICATION" OF PROJECT PROPONENTS BY STATE GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENTS FOR SUCH BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTES ACTIONABLE CONSPIRACY AND CORRUPTION.
ANY HARM DONE TO A RESPONSIBLE DISCUSSION PARTICIPANT IS "CONSTITUTIONAL EQUIVALENT" OF VIOLENT RAPE AND THE PERPETRATORS SHOULD BE TREATED IN AN EQUAL FASHION AS ANY 'SEXUAL' PREDATOR.
The proponents of the 520 Bridge should be ashamed of using this 94 year old man, a true giant of a workhorse of his age, in the manner they have.
Now, if only Sound Transit was only as expensive as Group Health!
Certainly Mr. Davis is proof of the benefits of that approach. Those members of the legal profession doing 'business' with the public should take a lesson for their profession from him, instead of abusing the reputation of such a distinguished, accomplished, GOD.
