Point of position is to be impartial

I have read a number of letters regarding John Koster supporting an individual with his own letterhead about what may be seen as an anti-union proposition. Here is something to think about. When John Koster was appointed ombudsman it was after his term on the Snohomish County Council had ended. His thoughts and opinions as a councilman were always known and expressed, as is required.

As ombudsman it is his (or any other candidate for that office) duty to be discreet and yes, not be involved or biased in any way! John Koster is what I would describe as a “political animal” in that he favors a party and certain legislation, which is his right. However, as ombudsman, I believe this is not the correct way to approach the duties of the office. I would not want to see a Democratic “political animal” either.

A good idea is for the ombudsman to be “politically boring.” The ombudsman has to be impartial and, in this case, signing or letter heading an anti-union statement does not support that even if done on his own time with his own letterhead. Imagine reading how “unions are the problem and have taken from its workers,” then telling some people who came to him, and may be members of a union, to “come in and tell me how I can help you.” That is just as bad as a Democrat saying, “conservatives are idiots, now how can I help you,” to a group of people who may be conservative in beliefs and principles.

While ombudsman are not judges, in the judicial sense, their responsibilities and need for discretion outweigh their right to talk or join causes or groups, lest they begin to lose that impartiality. We would not enjoy reading about any commentaries that court judges might discuss, we expect them to be truly impartial. If John Koster can’t stop being a “political animal” maybe he should resign, then he would be free to pursue all kinds of legislation that supports his idealogy. The ombudsman must be impartial or at some point the office will not be effective.

Steve Arnhold

Freeland