The state supreme court is only now deciding if it's ok for them to lie to you under oath, and in the voters pamphlet. If they say it's OK, it'll only get worse. If they say it's a recallable offense, Olympia may become a ghost town.

Auditor recall show plays for high court Washam asks for approval of 4th attempt to recall Pearsall-Stipek

Lisa Kremer;

Pierce County

The Pierce County auditor and some of her most persistent critics trooped down to Olympia on Tuesday to lay their dispute at the feet of the state's highest court.

The state's highest court didn't seem pleased about it.

Supreme Court Justice Phillip Talmadge asked Dale Washam, who was making his fourth attempt to recall the auditor, if he were "the little boy who cried wolf."

And Chief Justice Richard Guy criticized the lawyer for Auditor Cathy Pearsall-Stipek, saying the case has "put the court in a very difficult position."

Washam was asking the court to let him collect signatures on a recall petition that alleges Pearsall-Stipek shouldn't hold office because she lied in court records about having a college degree.

Her lawyer argues the matter is irrelevant. But if the justices were to agree, it could appear that the Supreme Court were winking at the legal oath to tell the truth - which the court holds dear.

A ruling isn't expected for several weeks.

Washam represented himself in the case, making it the second time a Pierce County auditor critic has argued without a lawyer in front of the state Supreme Court. Attorney Joe Quinn represented Pearsall-Stipek, as he has numerous times before.

Eight of the court's nine justices leaped into the action, peppering both sides with questions - even Justice Bobbe Bridge, in her first full day as a member of the court.

Meanwhile, on one side of the audience sat Pearsall-Stipek, her husband, Dave Stipek, and her assistant, Keri Rooney.

On the other side sat Mark Bennett, a Bonney Lake resident who has filed two recall petitions against the auditor, both dismissed by judges. Bennett appealed to the Supreme Court, where he represented himself, and lost.

Plus, there was Diane Rhoades, a behind-the-scenes critic who has spent endless hours observing the auditor's office and helping others taking legal actions against Pearsall-Stipek.

And there was Will Baker, who has been arrested during public comment time in both the Tacoma City Council and Pierce County Council chambers for talking too long, too insultingly, or both, about the auditor.

At the center of the maelstrom was Pearsall-Stipek, who said after the hearing she had no comment on the court arguments, then fended off KING-TV's Robert Mak as he dogged her through the building, down the steps, across the oval and into her car.

"I have no comment," she said.

Pearsall-Stipek has been the subject of numerous court actions by her critics, alleging illegalities in her election practices, but most have had little or no effect. (She did lose a case by a former employee who said she was harassed on the job.)

Washam's fourth recall petition is different. He alleges Pearsall-Stipek committed perjury by saying she had a college degree in cases in Pierce County Superior Court and U.S. District Court.

In 1998, Pearsall-Stipek admitted that for years she had misled people into believing she had earned a double bachelor's degree from the University of Washington. In fact, she went to the university for two years in the 1950s but earned no degree.

http://www.tribnet.com/

An honest government official is one who has not had a good enough offer. Dreams Come Due, 1986

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000

Answers

Lying on voter's guides and under oath is probably even more serious than lying about being a "linebacker at Iowa." Of Course, Schell lied TWICE. Once about being a linebacker at Iowa, once about not being a wuss.

Shows lack of integrity

Mayor Paul Schell's comparison of his days on the football field to the courage necessary to face up to political terrorism shows his lack of integrity and leadership ability.

It takes moral and political courage to protect our freedom, which is far different from the physical toughness necessary in a sporting contest.

Freedom is a state of mind, a moral concept that individuals and societies must be willing to take a risk for to defend. Our country was founded on this type of courage and many wars have been fought courageously by Americans who probably never played football.

Was fear used by Schell to protect himself from possible further political embarrassment after the WTO fiasco?

As Winston Churchill said at the beginning of WWII: "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

I am concerned that our desire for personal safety will leave us all fearful and subject to control by government leaders who pretend to protect us by limiting our individual freedom. Is this what Schell really wants? Do you? John Rodda, Medina

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Just as a side note, it is pretty much accepted as fact in Pierce County that Pearsall-Stipek is a world class idiot. How she has managed to hold elected office for dozens of years is a mystery to me. But the revelation that she lied in the voters' pamphlet did come out about a week before the election took place. It was well publicized, and the TNT withdrew their endorsement of her as a result. Yet with that information in hand, the voters still elected her.

Also, had Washam not run against her as an independent, it is most likely that she wouldn't have been reelected. He ended up pulling a Bruce Craswell and sucked away enough votes to where she was reelected with a plurality. It is also a generally accepted fact that Washam is a world class crank. Had he not run, the voters would have resolved the entire "is it okay to lie on the voters' pamphlet" question themselves.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 12, 2000.

So venture an opinion, Patrick. Should the citizens be allowed to run a recall election against her?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

They already did zowie, it was called the general election of 1998. The revelation that she has been lying about her education came out at least a week before the election, and was widely known.

Perhaps had this happened after or midway through a term, then a recall might be in order, but I think the county has better things to with the $100,000 or so dollars it would cost to hold a recall election of a person who was essentially subjected to one at the time of the incident in question. Personally I wouldn't mind at all if she left office (a better person probably would have, but we are talking about Pearsall-Stipek), and I certainly didn't vote for her. But the voter DID already pass judgement on her, and I don't feel that it is necessary to blow a sizable amount of cash on doing it again.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 14, 2000.

"Had he not run, the voters would have resolved the entire "is it okay to lie on the voters' pamphlet" question themselves. "

But if THAT's the case, you are saying that this one individual in a spoiler fashion denied the majority their opportunity to oust her. Given that, wouldn't you say that another election is worthwhile? Or does integrity in government not matter to you?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

Nice attempt at trying to create a false dichotomy. Hmm, either I should support a recall, or I don't think integrity in government matters.

Your attempt tries to absolve the voters of their own responsibilities. Washam didn't deny ANYONE the opportunity to oust Pearsall-Stipek. The voters were perfectly capable of voting her out of office whether there was one, two, or a dozen other candidates. But they didn't. They knew she lied about her education and they re- elected her. For me the case is closed. As I said, had this come to light after the election, I believe it would merit a recall attempt. HOWEVER, the people made their decision. I believe that it is a waste of money to ask the voters THE SAME QUESTION when nothing has changed (kind of like spending $5 million to ask the voters if they really wanted to pass 695).

Did Washam play the part of the spoiler? Yes. Who made him the spoiler? The voters. Maybe he's just feeling guilty. It's been his mission in life (and this is NOT an exaggeration) to get Pearsall- Stipek out of office. And he realized the day after the election that this was the best opportunity to do so.

And also just for the record, the reason why I didn't vote for Pearsall-Stipek and think that she should resign is BECAUSE integrity in government does matter to me. I can't control the other 90,160 people who DIDN'T make that decision.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 14, 2000.