Monthly Archives: July 2008

Candidate Endorsements for August 19, 2008 Washington State Primary

Lots of good progressive organizations are making endorsements for the upcoming August 19, 2008 Primary in Washington state. Here are links to some of them:

Washington State Conservation VotersStatewide Races

Washington State Conservation VotersLegislative Races

Washington State Conservation VotersLocal races

Cascade Chapter Sierra ClubPolitical Endorsements

Progressive MajorityWashington candidates

Washington State Labor CouncilEndorsements

Washington State Democrats – Statewide candidates

Washington State DemocratsCongressional candidates

Washington State DemocratsLegislative candidates

King County DemocratsEndorsements

Snohomish County DemocratsEndorsements

Spokane County DemocratsEndorsements

NARAL Pro choice WashingtonEndorsements

I will add more to this list as they become avaialable.

Washington State Republicans Running Away from Party Label

The Washington State Secretary of State’s Office has up on its website the 2008 Primary Election Voter’s Pamphlet. The Primary this year is on Tuesday August 19, 2008. This election will feature the new Top 2 Primary approved by voters by Initiative 872 in 2004.

Voters will be able to vote for candidates of either major party or minor parties without having to select either a Democratic or Republican or independent ballot.

This may actually create a certain amount of confusion because of how candidates have chosen to identify or not identify any political affiliation they may have.

As the Secretary of State notes:

“Each candidate for partisan office may state a political party that he or she prefers.
A candidate’s preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate.
Candidates may choose not to state a political party preference.”

This of course means that candidates have self identified themselves as to their party association but that, among other things, means that there is no way from their stated party preference on the ballot to determine if the candidates actually adhere or believe in the principles of the party they claim.

In addition there is a deliberate attempt by many candidates who have been Republicans in the past to try to obscure their association with the Republican Party by using a number of different ways to describe their political affiliation. It definitely appears as if they are afraid to call themselves Republicans. Do they really think that voters will be more inclined to vote for them if they try to hide their party affiliation?

In Legislative races Democrats did not have a problem calling themselves Democrats. Some 128 candidates claimed that they preferred the Democratic Party. One claimed he preferred the “True Democratic Party” and another the “Progressive Democratic Party”

But it was a different story with Republicans, or what I assume were Republicans in some cases. Some 102 candidates said they preferred the Republican Party.

But then another 25 candidates said they preferred the GOP Party. Is that something different from the Republican Party? What’s wrong with saying they prefer the Republican Party? If any of the GOP candidates get elected are they going to hold a separate caucus in Olympia from the Republican Party caucus? Two candidates said they preferred something called the “R Party”. One said he preferred the “Cut Taxes GOP Party” and another the “Grand Old Party.”

I was particularly intrigued by the “prefers R Party”. Is this a new party? I wanted to give the two candidates the benefit of the doubt and so I googled on “R Party”. Here’s what I came up with. This is the closest I could come up with – there was no immediate association of the Republican Party with the R Party. Try it yourself.

Urban Dictionary: R party

New R. Party Video – “Trapped In The Men’s Room” – Video – Stereogum

Daily Show: R. Party – Trapped in the Closet Pt. 2 – Truveo Video …

So who are the R Party candidates? One is Dan Kristiansen in LD 39 and the other is Herb Baze in LD 35. I think if elected they will be in a pretty small caucus. One wonders why they had trouble saying Republican and couldn’t get beyond the first letter.

There was a smattering of other stated party preferences:

Independent Party 3
Green Party 2
America’s Third Party 1
Progressive Party 1
Libertarian party 1
Salmon Yoga Party 1
no party preference 4

Peter Goldmark’s Opponent Raking in Timber and Mining Money

Peter Goldmark is the Democrat running for Public Lands Commissioner in Washington state. Goldmark leads in raising money over his Republican opponent Doug Sutherland, the incumbent. But the two campaigns are drawing money from very different donors.

Sutherland’s campaign is awash in special interest money from timber and mining companies. His donor list reads like a who who in the resource extraction business, whether it be trees or minerals.

Peter Goldmark has raised over $418,667.81 in cash and in kind contributions. Doug Sutherland has raised $353,121.40.

A breakdown of Sutherland’s contributions finds some 219 contributions from timber and timber related interests contributing a total of $145,809. This comprises 41.5% of Sutherland’s contributions. This is a conservative figure because not all contributors were identified as to their employer or their occupation. State law, for example, does not require this disclosure on contributions under $100 total.

Some of Sutherland’s larger timber associated contributors include:

Buse Timber & Sales (Everett, WA) $1600
John D Crow, Chairman, Green Crow (Port Angeles,WA) $3200
Freres Lumber Company, Inc (Lyons, RI) $3200
Hampton Lumber Sales (Portland, OR) $1600
Roseburg Forest Products (Roseburg, OR) $1600
RSG Forest Products, INC (Kalama, WA) $3200
Janes Warjone, Chairman, Port Blakely Tree Farms, LP (Seattle, WA) $3200
Zip O Log Mills (Eugene, OR) $1600
George Emerson, Manager Sierra Pacific Industries (Bella Vista, CA) $1400
Bob Lewis, Manager Columbia Vista Corp (Vancouver, WA) $2800
Murphy Hardwood Plywood Division (Eugene, OR) $1400
Murray Pacific (Tacoma, WA) $1400
Rayonier (Hoquiam, WA) $2800
SDS Company (Bingen, WA) $2800
Sierra Pacific Industries (Redding, CA) $2800
Simpson (Tacoma, WA) $1400
Weyerhauser (Olympia, WA) $1400
George and Wendy Weyerhauser (Lakewood, WA) $2800
American Forest Land Company, LLC (Ellensburg, WA) $1300
Green Crow (Port Angeles, WA) $2300
Columbia Cedar (Kettle Falls, WA) $1200
Forest Capital Partners (Boston, MA) $1200
Georgia Pacific Financial Management LLC (Jackonville, FL) $1200
Port Blakely Tree Farms LP (Seattle, WA) $2500
Murphy Hardwood Plywood Division (Eugene, OR) $1000
Plum Creek Administrative Corp (Columbia Falls, MT) $1000
Starfire Lumber (Cottage Grove, OR) $1000
Stimson Lumber Company Coeur D’alene, ID) $1000
Seneca Jones Timber Company (Eugene, OR) $2600

Another prominent source of contributions has come from mining and mineral extraction interests which do business with the DNR.

Echo Bay Minerals (Republic, WA) $1600
Tim Spraldin, owner Spraldin Rock Products (Hoquiam, WA) $1600
Asphalt Paving Association (Seattle, WA) $1400
Glacier Northwest (Seattle, WA) $2800
WA Aggregates & Concrete Association (Des Moines, WA) $2800
Cadman Heidelberg Cement Group (Redmond, WA) $1000
Kinross (gold mining) (Oroville, WA) $1000
Lakeside Industries (“asphalt, heavy highway construction”) (Issaquah, WA) $1000

The Commissioner of Public Lands oversees leasing and management of tidelands in Puget Sound and waterways on public DNR lands. Various shellfish and other seafood interests have also given to Sutherland. These include:

Northwest Marine Trade Association (Seattle, WA) $2200
Washington Geoduck Association (Bainbridge Island, WA) $1000
Bill Taylor, owner Taylor Shellfish (Olympia, WA) $750
Alaska Ice Seafoods (Bainbridge Island,WA) $500
Chelsea Farms LLC Olympia, WA) $500
Coast Seafoods Company (South Bend, WA) $500
William F Dewey, owner Taylor Shellfish (Shelton, WA) $500
Intertidal Farms (Olympia, WA) $500
Penn Cove Shellfish (Coupeville, WA) $500
Seattle Shellfish LLC (Olympia, WA) $500
Earl Steele Owner Rock Point Oyster Co. (Quilcene, WA) $500
Paul Taylor ,owner Taylor Shellfish (Olympia, WA) $500

Another source of contributions for Sutherland has been from energy and oil companies, particularly ones interested in leasing sites for wind power:

ConocoPhillips (Sacramento, CA) $1000
Iberdrola Renewables (Portland, OR) $900
MPC Shareholders Fund (Tacoma, WA) $900
Puget Sound Energy (Bellevue, WA) $1600
Pacific Power/Rocky Mountain Power (Portland, OR) $ 800
ENXCO(wind) (Carlsbad, CA) $600
BP North America Employee PAC (Warrenfield, IL) $500
TESORO Companies, Inc (San Antonio, TX) $ 500
Daren Huseby, Brookfield Power (wind)(Portland, OR) $300
David W McClain VP Everpower Renewables Corp (Beaverton, OR) $300
Dana Peck, developer, Horizon Wind Energy(Goldendale, WA) $300
James Walker,wind industry, self employed (Carlsbad, CA) $300

Seventeen people listed as employees of the Department of Natural Resources which the Commissioner of Public Lands oversees have given $11,200.

By contrast almost all of Peter Goldmark’s contributions have come from individuals. The only two exceptions are 6 contributions( including two in kind) totalling $46,577.02 from the Wa ST Democratic Central Committee and fourteen contributions from labor unions totaling $12,800.
Labor contributions to Peter Goldmark include:

Electrical Workers #46 PAC (Kent, WA) $1600
Sheet Metal Workers Local 66 (Kirkland, WA) $1600
Watate Construction and Building Trades Council (Olympia, WA) $1600
Washington Education Association (Federal Way, WA) $1600
IBEW Local 77 PAC (Seattle, WA) $1000
IBEW Local 76 (Tacoma, WA) $1000
Washington Teamsters Legislative League (Tukwila, WA) $2000
Washington State Labor Council (Seattle, WA) $800
IBEW Local 112 PAC (Kennewick, WA) $700
Amalgamated Transit Union (Seattle, WA) $ 300

Individual donors contributing $3200 included Julie Edsforth and David Tagney Jones.
Inslee for Congress gave $3000 and Peter Goldman $2800, Martha Kongsgaard $2800.
More individual donors can be seen on the PDC’s website.

Note – This contribution analysis is based on donors to both campaigns as available on July 13, 2008 on the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission’s website at http://www.pdc.wa.gov/.
Also for the record I have donated a total of $65 to the Peter Goldmark campaign.
Steve Zemke

Eyman’s Initiative 985 Adds $290 Million to State Budget for Road Building

Rather than solving any budget problems it appears that Eyman’s latest initiative gimmick will add another $290 million dollars to the currently projected $2.7 billion state budget deficit. A cutesy sound bite to end traffic congestion helped Eyman to buy enough signatures to most likely get the measure on the November ballot.

Hidden away in the Initiative 985 fine print is its real purpose – dedicate more money to road building while opposing its use for park and ride lots, or bike paths or buses or transit.

Unfortunately what paid signature gatherers getting paid by the signature never do is explain the fine print on the back of the initiative and what it will mean to taxpayers. And unfortunately not many voters take the time to ask what the initiative really does before they sign.

And if they did ask they wouldn’t have gotten the truth because Eyman wasn’t about to tell anyone that the real intent of Initiative 985 is to dedicate more money to road building. The State’s gas tax is already pledged to fund highways by the Washington State Constitution and Eyman wants to add even more to the pot to build more roads.

Petition signers are a pretty gullible lot, usually signing to put a complex measure onto the ballot without taking the time to read it. Eyman’s measures in the past have frequently been poorly written and have been frequently overturned in court. Many times their true impact is hidden away in the fine print

One reason for this is, unlike a bill in the state legislature, initiatives never have to stand up to the scrutiny of public hearings and revisions like most bills passed by the state legislature go through. They are never vetted by the public before they are on the street for signatures. Eyman’s initiatives are special interest legislation written mostly with an eye to keeping Eyman’s initiative business afloat and to promote his personal ideology.

This year his sugar daddy backed out of underwriting what has become a half million dollar business of paying to collect the signatures necessary to get a place on the ballot. Eyman took out a loan against his house to help underwrite his initiative mill business.

Initiative 985 sets up a dedicated fund, taking 15% of taxes on on new and used cars, toll fees above costs and red light camera fines that went into the general fund and commits this money only to Eyman’s traffic congestion (road building) fund. Such dedicated funds removes the flexibility to deal with changing priorities and needs, particularly in times of budget deficits like we are now in. It avoids the public scrutiny of the legislative budget process.

Eyman is trying to sell the initiative’s main purpose as opening up car pool lanes and synchronizing traffic lights but just how much money can you spend synchronizing traffic lights and opening up carpool lanes once you set them up?

Just how many tow trucks can taxpayers pay for? Not that many, because that’s not the real purpose of the initiative. Hidden away in the fine print of the initiative is it’s real purpose.

Eyman says that once you pay for synchronizing traffic lights, opening up car pool lanes and increasing emergency vehicles, that the money (estimated to be $145 million per year) be spent for “any other purpose which reduces traffic congestion by reducing vehicle delay by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles”.

Eyman continues that “Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining or operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail.” This is a quote from the initiative wording on the back of the initiative most people never read. Normally one would include these measures as ways to reduce congestion. But not Tim Eyman.

O.K now maybe you understand this initiative . It’s simple. It’s to build more roads for cars. Eyman’s trying to sell the initiative as opening carpool lanes and synchronizing traffic lights to reduce traffic congestion but once that’s done the bulk of the money can only be used to buy more asphalt or concrete “to expand road capacity.” and “improve traffic flow” The money can not be shifted for other purposes.

The initiative appropriates all monies from red light traffic cameras and toll costs beyond collection to road building. It appropriates 15% of all car fees collected by the state. And it can only be spent “to expand road capacity” and “improving traffic flow.”

Initiative 985 is the lazy man’s non-thinking approach to transportation problems. It blames poorly timed traffic lights and car pool lanes and not enough tow trucks as the problem. Maybe the real problem is too many people driving single occupancy vehicles. Building more roads only puts us in competition with Los Angeles style sprawl.

With rising gas prices that are likely to go even higher, people need less expensive alternatives and less polluting to getting around. Eyman’s proposed dedicated money for more roads would be better spent on reducing transportation miles traveled by promoting more carpooling and van pooling, more bike lanes and sidewalks and better public transit. The real issue facing us is how to reduce transportation vehicle miles traveled that contribute to global warming, not putting more cars on the road.

There is only so much money to go around and dedicating $290 million dollars every two years to building more roads for more car travel in a time of rising gasoline prices and increasing global warming seems a terribly misplaced priority.

Too bad people don’t take the time to read what they are really signing. Eyman is trying to pull a fast one here.

Building more roads is not the answer to traffic congestion, yet that is what the bulk of the money will be limited to if voters pass Initiative 985. Voters just need to say no to Tim Eyman and Initiative 985!

see also:

Floyd J McKay, Seattle Times 4/16/2008 “Tim Eyman’s traffic initiative is bogus

Chris Mulick, TriCityHerald 7/6/2008 “2 initiatives could bungle state budget”

Republicans Recycle Rovian Rhetoric in Attack Ad on Obama

The Republican Party is out to try to fool the American public again. Remember compassionate conservatism? With John McCain -the Republican Party is trying to sell us more snake oil in the form of an attack ad on Obama that touts McCain’s “balanced” energy plan and accuses Obama of “no new solutions”. In reality MCCain is the one with no new solutions.

According to the first major ad by the Republican National Committee supposedly done independently of the McCain Campaign, McCain’s going to solve our energy problems now with a “balanced” plan that pushes “more production at home”. This translates to opening up our beaches and coastline for off shore oil drilling and more nuclear power plants for which there still is no long term solution to dealing with the nuclear waste.

And he’s still touting his pandering proposal to suspend the Federal gas tax this summer, which unfortunately would remove money for repairing decaying roads and bridges. Of course such an approach would encourage people to drive more, not less, which is counter to his professed concern about “a climate in crisis” Drilling for more oil and suspending needed gas taxes are retro proposals from the Bush Era that are not real solutions to our energy and climate problems.

Of course the Republican ad campaign slips in the words “alternative energy and conservation” sort of like politicians slip in the words “God bless America” when ever they can but let’s look at the record. McCain has offered no new solutions to the energy problem – just a recycling of old Republican campaign tactics of mouthing vague generalities that may have some resonance with the public but which lack specifics to really evaluate.

For example the Detroit Free Press recently reported on McCain”s plan for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks. They noted that “the Republican’s proposals lacked key details” and that his “comments lead to confusion”.

“McCain said that to boost development of hybrids and electric vehicles, he would launch a $300-million award for a battery pack “that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”

The senator offered no other details, leaving some observers confused about his intent. There are no commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicles today, and the few electric vehicles on the market range from low-power minicars using traditional batteries to the Tesla Roadster, a $100,000 two-seater that uses lithium-ion cells found in computers and other devices.

The McCain campaign said the point of his proposals was to spur change, and that the method for meeting whatever goals he would set for the industry was less important.

“John McCain is not interested in knowing the details of the fuels that go in” to vehicles “and the technologies that process them,” said adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin. “What matters is: Do you get effective transportation with low carbon emissions coming out the tailpipe? Let the best technologies, the smartest invention, win.”

Sounds like John McCain supports the free market approach – no surprise here, but that’s what got us into the mess we’re in now. Change just for the sake of change is not what we need. One prime example is that we are now coming to realize that increased ethanol production can come with a lot of other problems, like increased costs for food. We need to understand the consequences of what we do so that we can make better choices. We need a President and Administration that understands that.

The free market approach, like John McCain espouses, works to optimize profits for corporations. Unfortunately corporate interests often conflict with national interests like conservation of fuels and resources for sustainability, reduced dependence on foreign oil and shifting to a carbon free economy that reduces global warming impacts. We need a President that works to promote the interests and well being of all the the citizens of our country, not just the profits of big corporations.

Just as John McCain is no economist he is also not an engineer or a scientist. John McCain’s voting record on energy and environmental issues is dismal. While most Democrats assume decisive action needs to be taken to deal with global warming , John McCain is getting a special break with the Press and Media because he is a Republican exposing some of these views.

Yet McCain’s voting record really belies this supposed message of someone looking for solutions. John McCain’s lifetime voting record with the League of Conservation Voters is just 26%. By contrast Ron Paul’s lifetime average is 30%.

Barack Obama’s League of Conservation Voter record is 96%. Hillary Clinton’s lifetime average was 90%. Dennis Kucinich’s was 92%.

You can also view a comparison of Obama’s and McCains positions on energy done by Bob Deans of the Cox News Service at the Dayton Daily News. While John McCain proposes reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, Barack Obama proposes reducing them by 80%. While Barack Obama proposes a target of 25% of our electricity needs being met by renewable energy by 2025, John McCain would rather we commit to building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030.

Another way of viewing McCain and Obama’s commitment to energy and environmental issues is to view how they responded to votes in Congress, including missed votes while they were campaigning. As the Center for American Progress’s Action Fund notes, John McCain has a poor record on Energy and Global Warming issues. They note that on numerous occasions McCain voted for legislation supporting big oil companies and against renewable energy and increased efficiency standards.

McCain for example had an opportunity to cast a decisive vote in 2007 for renewable energy legislation but sided with Big Oil. As the Center for American Progress notes:

In 2007, McCain was the only senator who failed to vote on a motion to invoke
cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Energy Independence and Security Act. This
vote was about whether to close $13 billion in tax breaks for major oil and gas
companies to invest in new clean energy technologies such as wind and solar, and
efficiency. Sixty votes were required for passage. The motion was rejected
59-40. [CQ.com; HR 6, Vote #425

One needs only to look at the record to realize McCain’s spoken word of wanting energy security and energy independence and conservation and on and on is only hot air and lacks substance. His actual voting record and missed opportunities to make a difference speak louder than anything else. McCain is at heart a Republican and Republicans as a whole are beholden to big corporations and big oil.

The only change McCain is doing is running away from previous positions like opposing off shore oil drilling which gave him some independence from most other conservative Republicans. To win the election he believes he has to cater to traditional Republican conservative voters. As such he is giving up his name brand maverick positions.

McCain is becoming just another conservative, knee jerk reacting to the problems facing America and uttering platitudes. We need fresh ideas and a new vision and leadership to solve our energy problems and respond to global warming. McCain unfortunately will take us back to the past when it is the future we need to deal with.

Seattle City Council Passes Tree Grove Protection Resolution

The full Seattle City Council on Monday , June 30, 2008 unanimously passed Resolution 31065 to help protect the remaining tree groves in the city of Seattle from being cut down. The resolution is an attempt to clarify the city’s current tree protection policies which are very weak and have only emphasized protection of exceptional individual trees.

The city has continued to lose tree cover . Between 1973 and now the city’s tree canopy has gone from 40% to 18%. The Council is trying to reverse this situation by protecting existing trees and planting new trees. Two recent proposed projects have pointed out the weakness and flaw in the past city tree policies.

A Seattle School District renovation proposal at Ingraham High School in North Seattle to add new classrooms to replace portables threatens some 62 Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees that are over 75 years old. The School District without public input decided to build the new addition in the grove of trees rather than around the corner on the North side of the school where an open lawn exists.

In the Maple Leaf community in North Seattle neighbors are fighting cutting down most of a grove of old trees at the former site of the Waldo Hospital. The old hospital is being razed and a block of houses is being put on the site.

Below is the Resolution passed by the Seattle City Council.

A RESOLUTION requesting the Director of the Department of Planning and Development to submit legislation to extend the City’s tree protection efforts to include groves or groups of trees or other vegetation that are determined to have substantial ecological, educational, or economic value and to update existing Director’s Rules in support of these efforts.

WHEREAS, Section 25.05.675(N) of the Seattle Municipal Code allows for preservation of trees as mitigation when a project would reduce or damage rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species of substantial aesthetic, education, ecological or economic value; and

WHEREAS, Director’s Rule 06-2001 focuses on individual trees and how the SEPA policy interacts with SMC chapter 25.11, the Tree Protection Ordinance, which also focuses on individual trees; and

WHEREAS, the language of Section 25.05.675(N) is not restricted to preserving single trees nor does it suggest restricting mitigation to a single tree; and

WHEREAS, the policy intent of the Council, as stated in SMC 25.05.675(N)(1)(a), is to have decision makers mitigate impacts resulting from the loss of plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological, or economic value; and

WHEREAS, development impacts in the City have significantly contributed to a reduction of our urban tree canopy from 40% in 1972 to 18% today, as documented in the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) completed by the Office of Sustainability and Environment in 2007; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) identifies an urban tree canopy goal of 30% for the City of Seattle to be achieved by 2037 and in Seattle’s most recent Comprehensive Plan amendments (Ordinance 122610), the Council adopted a goal of a 1% per year increase in urban tree canopy coverage up to 40% , and this goal is consistent with the urban tree canopy goal recommended by American Forests, the nation’s oldest non-profit citizen’s conservation organization; and

WHEREAS, the Council adopted a new Comprehensive Plan policy in Ordinance 122610 stating the City’s objective to strive to achieve no net-loss of tree canopy starting in 2008; and WHEREAS, mitigating the cumulative impact of the loss of Seattle’s urban tree cover by planting new trees will take decades; and

WHEREAS, climate change, effects of runoff to our streams, lakes, rivers, and Puget Sound, and air quality are issues of immediate importance; and WHEREAS, an environmentally and fiscally superior way to reach Seattle’s urban tree cover goal of 40% is to make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of trees;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THAT: Section 1. The City Council requests that the Director of the Department of Planning and Development promulgate or amend department rules to identify, consider, recognize and protect groves or groups of trees that provide rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, or wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for plant species of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological or economic value, for the purpose of evaluating and mitigating development proposals; and Section 2. The Council requests that the Director of Planning and Development submit legislation to extend the City’s tree protection to include groves or groups of trees that are ecologically interdependent, including groups that may contain exceptional trees as defined in SMC chapter 25.11.

Adopted by the City Council the 30th day of June, 2008, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this 30th day of June, 2008.
Richard Conlin
President of the City Council