My View

You Be the Judge...

       by Dixie A. Walter
       March 11, 2006

       Here are the facts as presented at the February 27 town council meeting. Precisely , facts presented during a public hearing concerning the airport - Swanson Field. The town was under a deadline to pass all aspects of the Comprehensive Plan by February 28. The issues surrounding the airport were public safety and height restrictions, some dealing with a large development in the works by Jerry Nybo.
       To hear all the comments you can purchase a CD of the minutes at the town hall. This is a nutshell version. 

       Fact: This was a public hearing. Neither the preliminary nor the final council agenda said there was a public hearing about the airport. 

      Fact: The deadline for adopting the plan was the next day. However, the people who served on the planning commission, elected officials and town staff, including the planner, have known for years this was coming. 

      Fact: Steve Van Cleve, local resident, commercial and recreational pilot, also former chair of the planning commission, stood before the council and pointed out the flaws in the airport chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Van Cleve also offered to work with the council and try for a time extension of the airport chapter. 

      Fact: The council ignored him. No one even acknowledged his offer.

      Fact: There were several speakers, mostly pilots. The majority of them wanted the council to take more time and address the airport site problems the best possible way. Several mentioned that the council should let Steve Van Cleve help them get the job done properly. Example: Richard Urich implored the council, "Let Steve help you. He’s been talking to the right people." Urich was not acknowledged either.

       Fact: The AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), with 400,000 members in America, is the "largest, most influential aviation association in the world" according to their Web site. Van Cleve is an oversight volunteer with AOPA regarding the airport. This group has voiced its concerns about safety at Swanson Field. 

       Fact: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible, on a national level, for advancing and promoting safety in the aviation field. The FAA has weighed in on the little airport, also voicing safety concerns in writing.

     Fact: John Shambaugh, Senior Aviation Planner for the Washington State Department of Transportation, agrees with AOPA and the FAA. Stating the same safety concerns in writing.

     Fact: Pierce County's Senior Planner, Mike Erkkinen, agrees with Shambaugh, in writing.

      Fact: The Washington Pilots Association, through their Director of Communications, Colleen Turner, concurs with the statements of the other groups, in writing.

Steve Pruitt Addresses the Council...

     The public hearing began with Planning Commissioner and Chamber of Commerce President Steve Pruitt speaking to the council as a "private citizen." Pruitt made reference to part of a memorandum sent by one of the town planners, Mart Kast, to the town council, mayor and various others. The memorandum is dated February 23, 2006 and deals with the airport.

     The excerpt from Kask's document states, "...I believe that the public process associated with the review of various draft ordinances, leading to the recommended language contained in Ordinance 2006-6, has  been extensive and through. The public involvement has been conducted in cooperation with aircraft owners, aircraft operators, property owners on and adjacent to the Aerospace District, the Washington State Transportation, Aviation Division, the Eatonville Planning Commission and other interested parties. Therefore, I recommend that the Town Council adopts Ordinance 2006-6 at its second reading on Monday, 27 February 2006." 

    Steve Pruitt: Commenting as a private citizen," With the three minutes I’m allotted I’d like to focus on one particular item, although there’s much more I could talk about.

    Third paragraph of Mart Kask's... letter to the council on February 23, 2006 which he makes his analysis and recommendation, he talks about a public process that he writes in his opinion “has been extensive,” and I think he meant to write “thorough,” but wrote “through,” possibly a Freudian slip.

   I didn’t experience the process the way he did. I don’t think it’s appropriate to characterize the process the way he did. I think it would be misleading to the council to make a decision based on that characterization. From my own personal experience that while there are several attempts to deal with this issue, which is a very volatile issue, in a healthy and participatory way with all the parties involved, and many people worked very hard to have that level of cooperation – the fact is that the last attempt to do that was a meeting at the town hall the mayor called. All the parties that wanted to be there were there. I was there representing the planning commission as were others…

     The state of Washington Department of Transportation was there, and at the conclusion of that meeting, which was a very informative meeting, it brought all of the issues out on the table and a lot of different viewpoints out on the table.

     The take, at the end of that meeting, was that we needed more time to develop something that was going to work and Mr. Smallwood suggested that perhaps we could pass the Comprehensive Plan at the deadline that approaches us now and leave this element out, and that was agreeable with people there.

     I left the meeting believing that was going to happen. I showed up at the next planning commission meeting with just a few days of short notice on a proposal that was put before us, and then moved through very quickly over nobody’s objections but my own. I don’t take that part personally, but I did express the concern then, and I express it now, that the regulations as they were passed did not have the input of the Washington State Department of Transportation it seems, in written communication, since they do have significant and important issues with what went through. 

     I noted those issues at the planning commission meeting; I ask you to consider those now. My recommendation is that we take Mayor Smallwood’s initial suggestion, and postpone the decision of airport regulations until a time when we can address those issues with full conversation with the Department of Transportation and others and get a healthy conclusion. Thank you.

Gene Casey Speaks about
 Regulatory Agencies...

      One of several pilots who spoke at the meeting, Gene Casey encapsulated a complex issue. Earlier Mayor Smallwood said the town clerk had received numerous messages from people who were concerned the airport was going to be closed. Both Smallwood and Van Cleve agreed the AOPA Web site had been misread by people who believed an article there implied the airport was going to be closed. This is why Casey referenced closing the facility.

     Gene Casey: I live in Ashford but sometimes land at the airport here. Some mention was made about no one has said anything about closing the airport. Well, you don’t have to do that. You create a situation where little by little by little it becomes so onerous to the people who are landing there, and to the people who have houses there, down the road that’s what happens.

      And I think that’s one of the concerns, if you make regulations that make the airport untenable you don’t have to say close it now, but it’s headed in that direction. I have come into this relatively recently, but it’s very clear to me in reading the materials I got tonight and hearing the discussion, that this is a flawed proposal.

     If you have AOPA, Washington Pilot’s Association, FAA, DOT and Planning and Land Services all telling you there’s a problem with what you’re proposing, then I think you have to listen to them.

    Obviously, you’ve got to straighten those things out before it’s going be acceptable to a lot of regulatory agencies. It sounds to me like this is not a proposal that’s ready to be voted on yet. You need to hammer out the problems that have all of these agencies telling you, "You don’t have it right yet."

 Airport Commissioner Disagrees...

         Mayor Smallwood then asks: Mr. Bertram, as airport commissioner could you make a comment?

        Mike Bertram: You know, they been fighting this thing for a long time. The planning commission passed the ordinance and this is the second reading. We went through this over and over and over again, there is some issues but I think they can be worked out, and it should be voted upon with a positive vote. And a lot of people put a lot of hard work - Mr. Kask, planning commission, city council – I think we just oughta get it by us and get it done.

        What the Regulatory Agencies Said to the Council and Mayor...

       Carol A. Key, Federal Aviation Administration, said in part: "The height hazard standards within the proposed regulations, in particular, are flawed and, if implemented, would disrupt airport operations, compromise public health and endanger pilots and the general public...Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 is not something that can be arbitrarily modified to match a particular development proposal. FAR Part 77 has been in existence for over fifty years (long before the residential development became a proposal) and it should be recognized accordingly. The Federal Regulations and State planning guidelines have been written to take into consideration different sizes and types of airports. We therefore recommend that your development regulations be modified to adopt FAR 77 in its entirety. We also highly recommend that you have a land use attorney review the risks and liabilities that your proposed regulations may have on your community."

      John Shambaugh, Senior Aviation Planner, WSDOT, wrote in a four-page letter: "The height hazard standards within the proposed regulations are flawed and, if implemented, would disrupt airport operations, compromise public health and endanger pilots and the general public. Height hazards are one of the leading causes of aircraft accidents. The height standards described in the proposed code do not conform to federal regulations and would increase allowed structure heights above the FAR 77 airspace surfaces. The attempt to define new standards for the surfaces creates confusion with federal regulations and promotes an unsafe environment for people on the ground and in the air. Recommendation: use the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 standards to define airspace. These regulations are supported by years of research and analysis and have been used nationally for all public use airports for over fifty years."

      Mike Erkkinen, Senior Planner, Pierce County Planning and Land Services Department (PALS): "...PALS has had the opportunity to review a proposed airport overlay zoning district from the Town of Eatonville. The proposal is identified as Alternative C, Aircraft Owners - Operators and Land Owners Proposal, and applies to Chapter 18.04.187 of Eatonville's zoning code.
      "Many provisions in the proposal relate to airport safety and FAA rules. These issues have been addressed in a letter dated February 24, 2006, from John Shambaugh of the Washington State Department of Transportation, Aviation Division, to Eatonville Mayor Tom Smallwood. We defer to Mr. Shambaugh's expertise on those matters."

      Colleen Turner, Director of Communication, Washington Pilots Association also weighed in: "On behalf of the Washington State Pilots Association, I strongly encourage you to vote against the proposed development regulations that will negatively impact Swanson Field. The Washington Pilots Association has over one-thousand members and has been working on behalf of general aviation in Washington since 1960.
      "The proposed development regulations are inconsistent with Eatonville's Comprehensive Plan, will allow development around the airport that is incompatible with airport regulations and are a hazard to safety. I have reviewed the comments on the proposed development regulations by WSDOT Aviation Division and support its recommendations"

     Excerpt from AOPA Web site: "The Eatonville Town Council will vote February 27 whether to approve a measure to adopt development regulations for Eatonville-Swanson Airport. AOPA is opposed to the measure that would pave the way for residential encroachment and allow additional penetration of the field's airspace. 'Airports across the country are under pressure from developers who look at all that green space and see a different kind of green,' said AOPA President Phil Boyer. 'But AOPA is committed to working with local pilots to protect America's airports from developers and from short-sighted officials who fail to recognize the benefits of a community airport.'"

      How Would You Vote?

     Given the litany of recommendations about the issue of public safety in and around the airport, how would you vote if you were representing an entire community? Would you vote to spend a little more time and fix what the experts see as a looming problem? Or would you ignore the experts and vote "Yes" on the proposal? 
      One councilmember said he didn't care what the feds said; he supported Mart Kask. The only elected official to vote against the Ordinance was Councilmember Bobbi Allison, who said she was not satisfied that the ordinance was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. And she noted the town attorney was not in attendance to answer her questions.

Encroachment and Safety?

                                                                                                                   (photo by Bob Walter)

      Just in front of the hangar with the green roof, running from left to right, is the runway of Eatonville's Swanson Field. At left is a plateau of fill dirt being graded for a planned development, on the southeast corner of the runway, already deposited  before the town council's decision on February 27 to pass a compromised and much-criticized airport development regulation affecting the safety of the users and residents of the airport, and the future of the town. There are supposedly going to be houses constructed on top of the fill. 

  My View:

Town Faulted in State Audit
Over $92,000 Spent without Proper Authorization...

     by Dixie A. Walter
     January 1, 2006

     The "Schedule of Audit Findings Report No. 69864" recently published on State Auditor Brian Sonntag's Web site has raised some questions and caused some confusion concerning dates and the audit. For example: The Audit Findings have several dates documented. The findings report is dated July 15, 2005 yet wasn't published on the auditor's site until Friday, December 23, 2005. Why were expenditures made between December 2003 and July 15 not studied and included in the audit?
     Another area of confusion are the dates of the audit. The Audit Findings Report states, "During our audit, we tested $384,584 in expenditures for the period of January 2002 through December 2003..." Among other findings is this one, "$34,701 for renovation of the Town Hall approved by the Mayor without prior Council Approval."
      ENN readers know the town hall remodel took place during the spring of 2004, not before December 2003. This is documented. Bruce Rath was appointed mayor by the council and sworn into office March 8, 2004. If Rath became the appointed mayor on that date and the town hall remodel was being done in April and May 2004, how can the town hall be included in an audit which ended several months before Rath became mayor and "approved" the remodel?" 

Town Hall Remodel Funds Questioned

     The audit findings report makes it very clear that the town hall remodel project was done under Bruce Rath's form of government.  Although the report doesn't mention him by name everyone involved knows who was calling the shots. At one point Rath told ENN the remodel would cost $12,000.
     When the other findings documented took place I don't know. There are no dates. However, I have  an inquiry into the auditor regarding more details pertaining to three other findings listed and computer equipment purchased without a sealed bid.
     *On April four, 2005 I published an opinion piece dealing with Rath's blatant, unauthorized spending of your money and mine. One case in point: June 2004 Rath bought the fire department $26,362.76 worth of radios without council approval. This unauthorized purchase doesn't show up in the auditor's findings report, but it's a documentable fact nevertheless. The state auditor might not have listed it, but your money was spent without authority regardless of what the state finds.
      I doubt that all unauthorized spending was listed.  Just add the radio sum to the auditor's figure and you already have over $100,000 spent going against the town spending laws. The exact total is $118,765. And I seriously doubt that the information I gleaned from various sources are anywhere near complete.

Why No Checks and Balances?

      Why didn't the council put any checks and balances on a mayor who liked to spend, spend, spend, but didn't like going through proper procedures? Since this spending took place over a long period of time, the council could have reacted. Of course, technically the council didn't know this spending was taking place because it was being done through the back door.
       But, on at least one occasion, I publicly asked the council about the town hall remodel and was told by then Councilmember Ray Harper that what they were doing was alright since Rath was not taking a salary. It is true that the mayor didn't take a salary. But that fact doesn't make it right to bypass spending laws and pay out thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars.  At any rate, the mayor's salary wouldn't have paid for the complete remodel, and unauthorized spending would still have taken place.
       This little exchange, at a council meeting, explained only one thing to me. That at least one person on the council, Harper, elected to represent your best interests, was in the loop with Rath about the money being spent. They had the same story, but the rest of the council said nothing at the time. It was pretty obvious at least some of them were aware spending limits were being ignored.  And they had come up with an excuse which was supposed to sound plausible and stop inquiry. 
       Naturally, this is only my opinion. If that was the ploy, it didn't work. There were many other taxpayers who were also concerned. But I have no idea if any of them attempted to put an end to the months and months of what I would say is illegal spending. Breaking the Eatonville Municipal Code is, essentially, breaking the law.

Some Citizens did Talk to the Auditor...

       It is my understanding that a couple of citizens did talk to the auditor, and Rath seemed so sure I was one of them he went so far as to request public records from the auditor's office in an attempt to link me to discussions with the auditor about unauthorized spending. 
      That was a true exercise in futility, as I had never communicated in any way, shape or form with the auditor. Although, as a taxpaying citizen of this small town I now believe I had a duty to report my "findings." By keeping quiet about the spending spree I became part of the problem. And I would say, so did others who knew what was happening but kept quiet also.
       One person who did alert the auditor to some of the misspending was Councilmember Bobbi Allison a member of the town's finance committee along with former Councilmember Chelan Jarrett. Allison was right to do so, but was vilified and consistently harassed  for her effort. And Rath, in his position of mayor, spent months threatening her livelihood at her job in Lakewood. If an elected official is treated in such a shoddy manner it's no wonder most of them don't want to get involved. 
       The bullying tactics didn't work on Allison, but surely may have frightened others who might have wanted to talk to the auditor. Rath should have kept his eye on the laws and dropped his vendetta against Allison. If you will recall part of Allison's platform, when she campaigned for mayor, included calling for a complete state audit. Now that suggestion is much easier to understand. 
        It's a pretty pathetic commentary on small town governments when the mayor is allowed by council, and citizens, to run roughshod over town laws and spend at the very least over $100,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money. Allowing a bully to spend your money like it was his own puts the blame on all of us. I also wonder why Town Attorney Bob Mack didn't advise Rath about the laws which were being broken? We citizens pay him so he can keep the town out of this type of situation. And we know the town clerk was aware of the mayor's spending limits. She has to be, that's a part of her job. 

First Audit Findings in Five Years...

        An interesting sidebar to this Audit Findings report is the fact that under the heading "Description of the Town" subtitle "Audit History" the document states, "We audit the town every two years. However, in 2001, the Town spent more than $300,000 in federal funds which required an annual single audit under federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. We have reported no findings for the Town in the last five years." (Emphasis added.) Due to the dates on the audit in question, it's unclear which five-year period the auditor is referring to. 
       I find this particularly interesting. For the past five years Eatonville has been doing right with  your money. However, in the short period of time Rath was mayor the town now has several findings. We had a new mayor and a relatively new town clerk, and now we are in a mess. Could it be possible they will just play down this misuse of public money?  
       And the excuse which may be used by Rath could have him saying he wasn't aware, or sure, of the town's spending limits. If that excuse is used I can tell you right now it would be false. During the course of several conversations with Rath when he first became mayor, he mentioned at least three separate times, that he knew the mayor's spending limit was $5000. Another point of interest is that the town's annual budget was "approximately $6.5 million for the year ending December 31, 2003." This year's budget is $11, 255, 507.12. 
       The "Audit Summary Results" tells us, "In most areas, the Town complied with state laws and regulations and its own policies and procedures. However, we identified one condition significant enough to report as a finding. 
       "The Mayor approved purchases of supplies and materials for construction projects that were not in compliance with state bid law or with the Town's own policies and procedures. Also, finance staff purchased equipment and supplies without approval from the Mayor and against state bid law. We recommend the Town Council and Town management follow state bid law and its own policies." 
       I have no idea who the "finance staff" is at town hall. And I have a very hard time swallowing the line that some "equipment and supplies" were bought without approval from the mayor. This man sure seemed like a micro-manager to me and others. It appeared he spent a huge amount of time at the town hall and I find it difficult to believe he let "equipment and supplies" be purchased without knowing about it. If this is so, he sure didn't have nearly as tight a hold on the staff as he wanted us to believe. It would appear, if true, that some staff simply ignored him and his authority.

Town Didn't Bother to Answer Auditor...

       In a brief letter dated December 23, 2005 addressed to the "Mayor" and signed by State Auditor Brian Sonntag, he notes, "...we also audit the Town's financial statements and compliance with federal laws and regulations. The results of that audit will be included in a separately issue audit report."
      The town, under then Mayor Rath, was given ample time to answer the auditor's report, but didn't do so. In my opinion Rath cares little or nothing about authority. It will be interesting to hear his rationale for not responding to the auditor.
      Running unopposed, Rath managed to get himself on the town council. My prediction - Rath will be made mayor pro tem in January, and if anything takes new Mayor Tommy Smallwood away from the job, Eatonville will be right back in Rathburg. Hopefully as a councilmember, Rath's disrespect for laws will be curbed by other councilmembers and Mayor Smallwood. We will see, won't we?
      And speaking of Smallwood I want to be perfectly clear that he is a neophyte mayor who has never been on the council. Thus, none of these audit findings are on his shoulders. This didn't happen on his watch, which has only begun.
      To read the "Schedule of Audit Findings" please see below.      

       To read excerpts from ENN articles please see Rath and Town Funds
       My View - April 4, 2005 - "What Are Laws for Anyway?" Please see pink highlighted area.
       May 9, 2004 - "Town Hall Gets Spacious Remodel" - Aqua highlight.
       My View - November 21, 2004 - "Too Much Unauthorized Spending..." Blue highlight.

Schedule of Audit Findings

Town of Eatonville
Pierce County
July 15, 2005

1. The Town did not comply with its policies and procedures and state bid laws.

    Description of Condition  

     During our audit, we tested $384,584 in expenditures for the period January 2002 through December 2003 to
     ensure compliance with the Town’s policies and procedures as well as state bid law. 

    We noted expenditures of $92,423 that did not comply with Town policy.  Specifically:
 
    ·         $3,152 for two invoices and two vendors in which supplies were purchased without the
           Mayor’s approval.

    ·         $37,490 was spent for professional services above the amount originally authorized by the Council.

    ·        $17,080 in purchases for supplies approved by the Mayor without Council approval.  

     ·       $34,701 for renovation of Town Hall approved by the Mayor without prior Council
           approval.

    We also noted a purchase of $14,482 for computer equipment, without a formal sealed bid,
      that did not comply with state bid law. 

    The Town’s purchasing policy, in place during the audit period, requires approval by the Mayor
     for purchases between $1,000 and $5,000 and at least one Council Member for purchases
     above $5,000.  State bid law requires a formal bid process for purchases above $7,500 without
     a vendor list.  

   Cause of Condition

   Town management and staff circumvented controls and policies by not obtaining proper approval
    from either the Mayor or the Council for purchasing activities.

   Effect of Condition

   The Town cannot ensure it received the lowest price or that all vendors were provided an equal
    opportunity to participate.  Further, taking the Council out of the purchasing process weakens
    controls and prevents the Council from performing its duties in monitoring Town activity.

   Recommendation  
 
   We recommend staff adhere to Town policies and state bid law.  

   Town’s Response  

   The Town was given an opportunity to respond to this finding and has not done so.  

   Auditor’s Remarks

   We will review the status of the Town's corrective action in our next audit.

                                                                                      For Applicable Laws and Regulations please see Audit Report