Nickels’ swan song
Editor, The Times:
Your recent article provided much insight into why Mayor Greg Nickels did not win re-election [“Outgoing Mayor Greg Nickels leaves stamp on Seattle,” News, Jan. 1].
However, it did not mention the No. 1 reason why he lost: The handling of the monorail. Had he saved the monorail — or even a scaled-down version of the monorail, which he could have easily done — then he would not have faced meaningful opposition from the left.
The Stranger would have supported his re-election — along with more moderate publications, such as The Seattle Times. He would have easily advanced from the primary and even more easily have beaten whatever candidate advanced with him.
— Ross Bleakney, Seattle
Dodd’s retirement
Sen. Chris Dodd’s signal that he’s not going to seek re-election should be an ominous storm cloud on the horizon for the Democrats [“2 Dems might leave Senate: Dodd may announce today,” News, Jan. 6]. He knows in his heart he’d get slaughtered — even with his ability to raise money from the banking lobby because of how he’s wasted our children’s inheritance. There’s anger on the stump for liberals.
His support for the health-care bill, his lax oversight of the banking industry and his character clearly seen going back to an event with Ted Kennedy in a restaurant in New York — Maureen Dowd was the only one who couldn’t stand the cover-up at the time — show that the good people from Connecticut are due for a new approach.
Are the people of that fair state really as left as Dodd? I doubt it. Connecticut, do what’s right and unexpected: Field and elect a conservative.
— Wayne Mayo, Scappoose, Ore.
Recipient of abuse
When Craig Ladiser’s professional career ended in disgrace after he exposed himself on a Redmond golf course in June of 2009 [“Trail of harassment alleged,” NWWednesday, Jan. 6], he left the Snohomish County Building and Planning Department in disarray, broken and in pieces. What happened at the golf course was not an aberration, but an extension of Ladiser’s and Greg Morgan’s abuse of power and their lack of integrity, moral fiber and ethics.
My own complaint for harassment and bullying was also brought before Morgan and never answered or followed up in any manner. I did not go to Mark Knudsen, the county investigator, because I felt it was futile and useless. When I announced last February that I would leave the county rather than work “for bullies and widget kings,” I was retaliated against and given a formal written reprimand.
Many people in positions of power, including the County Council, knew of the grievances and concerns regarding Ladiser and Morgan, but continued their support for them. Even when Morgan left in May and Ladiser was fired in August and the bullying and harassment against me abruptly stopped, the people and cronies Ladiser had put into positions of power and authority remained completely intact in their “good ol’ boys network.” After more than 31 years and many hard-fought battles, I left the county last October.
— Carol Richter, Lake Stevens
Department follows rule of the jungle
One should not heap more misery on a disgraced public official, but the latest revelations in the sorry saga of Craig Ladiser are only further evidence of the abuses in the Snohomish County executive branch and its planning and development services department when operating without proper oversight.
Those of us who have watched with dismay the outrageous public-policy decisions of that office are only further saddened to see that personal indiscretions were also tolerated. The county executive has for years encouraged the disregard of sound public policy set out by the Legislature, his County Council and its hearing examiner, and has been in favor of wealthy developers.
Let’s hope that the new director of that beleaguered department can convince the executive that following the rule of law is preferable to the rule of the jungle.
— Tim Clancy, Stanwood
Human resources should aim for zero complaints
After reading “Trail of harassment alleged,” I was amazed by the unprofessional and inappropriate behavior by certain managers and supervisors, as well as the seemingly general dismissal of the complaints made by employees by the Human Resources Department because there were too few to merit looking into further. Mind you, these complaints and concerns date back to 2004, according to the article.
I would think that HR would want to aim for zero complaints from employees regarding sexual harassment, derogatory remarks and what seems to me to be a hostile workplace environment propagated by the supervisors and managers of the Planning Department. Five out of 200 complaints are still too many. Do they really think that two hours of personnel training on state workplace-discrimination laws is going to do the trick?
— Melissa Johnson, Edmonds