Letters

Federal spending

Pensions for electeds are out of whack

Just yesterday I saw her on the senate floor speaking against the high salaries of company CEO’s…..

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under this fancy “Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,” which means that even if she never gets re-elected, she still receives her Congressional salary until she dies.

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits her salary until he dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets his salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? We do!

It’s common knowledge that for her to establish New York residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. But, an extra residence had to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clintons’ salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12-man staff – and this is all perfectly legal!

The federal government is overbudget – again – but no one in office can understand why. Is it any wonder?

MARK DOENNEBRINK

Bothell

Mountlake Terrace

Meetings problem

start at the top

If she has been rude, take council woman Amundson behind the proverbial woodshed, but don’t embellish the truth to other ends. If the things which the article asserts aren’t simply hearsay or innuendo, the paper owes it to the public to put them on the table.

Who threatened council woman Sonmore? When? We all want her and all councilors to be safe. Who was deceitful? About what? If our capable city clerk felt personally attacked, let her say it, not the mayor and others defending her against phantom wrongs. Amundson’s frustration with what she felt were misrepresented remarks was petty posturing, but she never asked for “verbatim minutes.” The reporter didn’t listen closely. That was council man Housler’s reasonable interpretation of her statement, not a request made by Amundson. From all this hyperbole has evolved remedies which don’t match the problem. Our council meetings are no less decorous than nearby cities, yet those cities don’t require routine police presence. Furthermore, police presence at our public meetings started last summer when plain clothes police went so far as to guard the microphones at the high school Brightwater meeting. The city manager’s armed backup is more threatening and intimidating than anything any citizen has done in the seven years I have been regularly attending these meetings.

The council has longstanding rules for public and council participation, which (Mayor Pat Cordova) chooses to honor at her whim. The decline in civility at council meetings starts at the top with the disrespect and broken promises of the mayor and city manager. If the city manager or council members feel threatened, it is by the open exchange on contradictory ideas, not by the people. They already know what is right for us. When so many people disagree with them, what was an inconvenience is now a threat.

LEONARD FRENCH

Mountlake Terrace

Edmonds Alliance

Spending on group

has not been justified

The state Constitution forbids using public money for non-public purposes. Mayor Haakenson submitted a budget and a revised budget which violates this statement. He included the same amount in both budgets despite strong public opposition while sharply cutting real public services such as the police and fire departments.

And it was passed thanks only to the three Alliance members or backers, Earling, Marin, and Plunkett; and then only by 4 to 3. No real public purpose of the Alliance is identifiable and no quantifiable public benefit has occurred despite well over a $100,000 cost. The Mayor has been asked to realistically account for this but refuses to respond in a meaningful way. He is himself a member of the Alliance Board of directors which is an obvious conflict of interest.

The Edmonds city accounting staff has always had a fine record and this staff bears no responsibility for the mayor’s decision which is his and his alone. He cannot run from that responsibility. Only one of the four non-Alliance Council members voted in favor this year. One Council member last year described it as “outrageous.”

Mr. Mayor, I would not be too smug about this year’s audit as your “spin” may not work as well as in the past. You know deep down that the money belongs to the citizens and should be used for a public purpose such as the police and fire departments. Budgets can be modified.

I recommend to my friends and fellow citizens to vote no for any additional city tax proposals until the foregoing outrage is cleaned up.

RAYMOND J. MARTIN

Edmonds