Thank you for your letter.  As you will note a copy has been posted on the site. 

I see several themes in your letter.

First you seem to see my comments about the Coalition as an accusation that the members of that organization are somehow attempting to personally enrich themselves with the donations from the LEOFF I community. If you truly see that in my comments, you are reading something in to what I have written or I have expressed myself poorly. I will expand on this subject later, but I want to assure you that I do not and have not accused any Coalition member of attempting to “line their pockets with our silver and gold.” To the contrary, many of the articles I have written pay homage to their unselfish dedication and hard work without compensation.

Second, you describe discuss the historical perspective of the Coalition, how it came to be and what were its original purpose and goals. You are partially correct in your observations. I will attempt to clarify that a bit more.

In 1999 and 2000 there were rumors flying about the LEOFF 1 community and within the various organizations. There was a $1.1 surplus and the teachers had been awarded gain sharing whereby they would be able to enjoy some of the benefits of the extraordinary earnings of the Pension Benefit Trust Fund. In Anchorage, with a situation and structure very similar to LEOFF 1, a series of lawsuits and appeals had resulted in a payout to all of the pension fund members of about $90,000 each. There were rumors that the State might offer each of us $20,000.

It was reported that the fire districts were seeking to limit the authority of disability boards, define what they could approve and establish an oversight of those boards by some state authority. Additionally the Association of Washington Cities was lobbying the Joint Committee on Pension Policy to reduce the number of disability boards to two and to utilize the surplus to assist them in meeting their LEOFF 1 medical benefit obligations.

Mark Curtis and others organized a series of meeting with the hope of bringing all of the various stakeholder organizations to the table. The first meeting was September 7, 2000. At that time, an informal coalition was created. Subsequent meetings were held in October of 2000. The goal was to organize in such a manner that we could all speak to the legislature with one voice. Some people wanted to sue, some wanted to lobby. The interest of the LEOFF 1 community as a whole was to insure they had an opportunity to participate fairly in any distribution of surplus funds.

The Coalition was a product of those meetings. It was formally created at a meeting in Yakima on October 26, 2000. 122 LEOFF 1 members attended the meeting. Senator Larry Vognild, a retired Everett Fire Fighter and Rep. Al Obrien, a retired Seattle Police Officer attended. There was a lot of discussion about legislative activity and the possibility of a lawsuit to seed a distribution of the surplus.

Significantly, the Coalition was created as an organization of organizations. There were and are no general members. The Coalition’s only membership were those representatives appointed by the member organizations. The founding organizations were the Retired Fire Fighter of Washington (RFFOW), the Retired Deputy Sheriff and Police Officers Association (WSRDSPOA), the Retired Seattle Police Officers Association (RSPOA), the Washington State Law Enforcement Association (WSLEA), the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters (WSCFF) and the Washington Council of Police Officers and Sheriffs (WACOPS). The leaders of those organizations at the Yakima meeting created the Coalition in the presence of 122 LEOFF 1 members. Special recognition for bringing this organization into being should be given to Mark Curtis and Dave Grayson, the then President of the RSPOA.

At the October 26, 2000 meeting, two principal goals were established for the Coalition. First was to protect the integrity of the LEOFF 1 pension plan. Second was to seek an equitable distribution of the surplus pension funds to LEOFF 1 members. The Coalition quickly raised $250,000 in donations based on these promises. Since that time, the Coalition can claim some role in the successful blocking of raids on the system. As to the second promise, they had never in the nine years of their existence taken any action or sought any legislation that would meet that goal. In fact, they have, abandoned that goal but have never rescinded it or provided any report as to they gave it up.

I left that meeting confused. There were lots of opinions expressed and many rumors repeated but there was a significant absence of facts about what was really going on. The reports of the actions of the fire districts and the Association of Washington Cites were vague and non-specific. So were the reports on gain sharing and the Anchorage case. Since there was a $1.1 billion surplus, everyone felt that we should and possibly could participate in some sort of a distribution of those funds.

At the October 26 meeting, I advised Mark Curtis that I would be willing, without charge, to design and host a web site for the Coalition where they could provide regular reports to the community of their actions and of any news or events that would be of interest to the community. My feeling was that we needed facts and not rumors. At that point, I was convinced we had an organization populated by knowledgeable individuals who could be a source for those facts. I saw this as one vehicle whereby we might organize political action should a need arise. Mark turned me down. Still convinced the community needed facts, I created LEOFF1.Net and determined to dig up the facts as best I could.

Not only did I leave that meeting confused, I also left the meeting concerned. It was obvious that the two most politically powerful member organizations, WSCFF and WACOPS, were representatives of police and fire unions with majority LEOFF 2 membership. It was clear there would be conflicts of interest. I hoped that both the LEOFF 1 and LEOFF 2 would work to find those areas where they could work together for a common cause and stand aside where there were conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, my concerns soon proved to be valid.

The meeting you referred to was held at the Lake City Elks on December 7, 2000. Yes, Larry Vognild did attend that meeting. It was at this meeting where the Coalition first started to unravel. Some call it a power play about who would run the Coalition. I call it the first Coalition failure.

WSCFF and WACOPS were the most politically powerful groups with established lobbyists and a long history of positive relationships with legislators. They were concerned that any effort to sue by the Coalition would result in damage to those relationships and endanger their ability to represent the interests of their members. Their charge involved seeking LEOFF 2 improvements and changes to various laws that improve working conditions for active fire fighters and police officers. Since only a small minority of their members are LEOFF 1, they did not feel they could support any legal action that could damage their greater responsibilities.

I do not fault them for taking that position. It was really their obligation. They clearly had a serious conflict of interest. I do fault them and the rest of the Coalition for not working to find a common ground where they could support each other. Had that happened, the Coalition would have had a strong lobbying arm. Instead, they left the Coalition and many Coalition board members not only faulted them but also often characterized them as the opposition and enemies. Those attacks became personalized rather than a discussion of issues and an effort to resolve conflicts.

During those early days, there was a lot of internal dissention within the Coalition. It somehow became Dick Warbrouck’s turn in the barrel. I sat through several meetings where Dick did not seem to be able to get a floor discussion on any issue—even his requests for meeting agendas were rejected. I think he recognized at that point that he would have little traction within the Coalition and determined to keep retired fire fighter donations within his organization. The other Coalition members saw this as a diversion of Coalition funds and still describe him as having taken $60,000 of Coalition money. The RFFOW members have gotten a lot more legislative representation and some significant legislation with that money. Their members get an extensive monthly newsletter detailing real facts about pension legislation. In contrast, the Coalition has never proposed legislation and rarely even bothered to testify. Their lack of communication with the LEOFF 1 community is legendary.

The net result was the RFFOW left the Coalition. The RFFOW has done a very good job at keeping their concerns before the legislators. Rep. Conway and others have advised me that Dick Warbrouck must be a part of any effort dealing with LEOFF 1 issues. The Coalition has made no effort to form a working relationship with the RFFOW. In fact, I have been criticized by Coalition board members for even suggesting we should explore such an effort.

Shortly after the Coalition formed, Local 27, Seattle Fire Fighters, became a Coalition member. Of course, Local 27 is primarily a LEOFF 2 organization. However that group found it possible to stand firmly behind their LEOFF 1 members through all the turmoil of the attempted raids on the pension funds. The Coalition refused membership to the Seattle Police Officers Guild because they are primarily a LEOFF 2 organization and refused a petition by WACOPS to return to the Coalition because they are primarily a LEOFF 2 organization. If you can make sense of that logic please let me know. The successful membership of Local 27 clearly demonstrates that common ground can be found in the face of conflicting interests.

I could continue detailing the month-to-month activities, success and failures of the Coalition. That hardly seems productive at this point. However, I do want to point out that the Coalition did a superlative job in fighting two bills that would have raided the pension system. They also identified a law firm to represent two LEOFF 1 members in a suit that played a significant role I blocking SB 6166. They provided financial assistance in concert with other organizations to assist the Snohomish County disability board in blocking the appeal of a significant LEOFF 1 medical issue. They have recently provided funding for a lawsuit in Moses Lake over the same issue.
Guess what, the average LEOFF 1 member would not even know about these successes if it were not for LEOFF1.Net. The Coalition rarely communicates with the community and when they do, there is not much substance. Take a look at the recent Coalition annual reports. You tell me if there is any substance. I see little. I see inaccuracies. I see an alarmist tone that can only be structured into scaring people into sending them money. Oh, they don’t even provide a financial report about what they are doing with your money.

Early on, the Coalition conducted a number of seminars across the state. These were good events and provided a lot of needed information to the community. Unfortunately, those meetings are now rare.

I started LEOFF1.Net in the October of 2000. I did it to provide facts instead of rumors. I did it because the organization that claimed to be the representative of us all refused to provide reports to the community. I stuck my nose under every tent I could find. I attended legislative hearings. I met with legislators and I attended meetings of organizations all across state. I then wrote reports on my findings. When I took an editorial position I clearly identified it as my opinion.

I have often been critical of the Coalition on LEOFF1.Net. I have also been critical of the RFFOW, WACOPS, WSCFF and even the RSPOA. However, those criticisms have been over issues—never personal. It seems that every organization except the Coalition found such criticism to be a part of business. They dealt with it, ignored it and sometimes even considered the concerns I expressed. My sole goal was and is to stimulate discussion in the LEOFF 1 community and to provide real facts upon which LEOFF 1 members could form judgments.

In 2006, I was appointed to represent the RSPOA on the Coalition board. I was sent to that position with specific instructions to push for greater transparency, better financial management, a concerted effort to expand the list of know LEOFF 1 members and to push to establish a operating budget. The RSPOA board as alarmed at the rate of spending within the Coalition and the apparent lack of progress towards its stated goals. Those efforts, combined with my history of being critical of some of their activities, did not make me popular on the Coalition board.

After almost three years of pushing for these reforms, it was clear that the Coalition board would not be responsive. With the help of Don Daniels and Jerry Birt, we did get a budget committee established. After several months of work, the committee identified a number of issues that needed board review. That report was summarily dismissed and the issues were never addressed.

The result of my efforts was my being declared disruptive. I was subjected to personalized attacks and even threats. The pattern was clear. Anyone who disagrees or wants to discuss issues is an enemy. In fact one board member objected to my not getting with the program, i.e. rolling over and rubber stamping every proposal. This was simply a repeat of their pattern of refusing to work to resolve issues and to vilify anyone who even suggest a better job can be done.

The Coalition suffers from a lack of transparency in operations. In violation of state law and its own bylaws, it refuses to provide records of the corporation even to its own board members. It refuses to provide information concerning business transactions and financial expenditures to its own board members. It enters into transactions and expenditures without full disclosure and without a vote by its board.

The lack of transparency produces the appearance of failure to properly to manage and account for funds contributed to the Coalition. I remain convinced that Coalition board member have, if not a legal, at least a moral fiduciary responsibility to those individuals that have contributed money over the years. The Coalition has spent almost $200,000 since its inception. I believe they could have done a better job and accomplished a lot more with that money.

My efforts to increase the transparency resulted only in more personalized attacks. Ask your friend, John Hart. He has recordings of those attacks. On one occasion, the threats were so outlandish that even the perpetrator realized he was out of bounds an apologized. Through it all, the issues were not discussed. But that is the style, attack the individual – ignore the issues.
The worst was yet to come. This organization, conceived as an organization of organizations and responsible to those organizations has changed. Now it has but three remaining organization. Once it had seven. Only one of those organization, the WSRDSPOA has any significant numbers of LEOFF 1 members.

Now the Coalition holds veto power over the appointment of the representatives of these organizations. Member organizations can no longer chose their own representative. Over the years, the Coalition has added at-large members. The President has handpicked them all. The member organizations were protected because those at-large members, six in number at last report, shared one vote. Now they each have a vote and they outnumber the representatives from the organizations.

I do not want to impugn the character of any at-large member. Most are conscientious and believe they are acting in accordance with what they believe to be the best interests of LEOFF 1 members. For example, John Hart is an at-large member. As far as I can ascertain, he is held in high regard by the Everett fire fighter group. From what I have seen of his activities on the Coalition board, he appears to be competent and dedicated. He has taken the job of Secretary seriously and appears to be dedicated to his chores. However, the at-large members are responsible to no one but themselves. If you do not like the way they act within the Coalition you have no say. You cannot vote them out. They can only vote themselves out. Even though they are presently good people, it is a recipe for disaster. The Coalition has become a private club and they are spending the money that we have donated.

The morphing from an organization base to a private club is simply unacceptable.

This problem is compounded by new by-law changes and spending authorizations that loosen the purse strings even more. At the August 20 board meeting, the Coalition was considering a by-law change that would lift the restriction on the number of at-large members. This action will further diminish the role of the member organizations and insure the ability of at-large members to maintain total control of the Coalition. Remember these at-large members are not elected by anyone. You cannot vote for or against them. You cannot have whatever group you belong to remove them.

Also under consideration at that meeting was a proposal to grant the President and Vice President full authority to commit Coalition funds for the rental of halls, travel, expenses and more without any consideration, let alone, approval by the board.

I do not know if these changes passed but I feel safe in assuming they did.

In your letter, you spoke of the Coalition becoming redundant with the diminished pension surplus offering little incentive for raids. You wondered what would be done with any left over money should the Coalition dissolve. It is an interesting observation, because nine years ago I was asking the same question and arguing for a formula that would return unused funds either to their donors or member organizations. The solution? Under the articles of incorporation, any such funds must be donated to charity.

Lastly, I want to more fully address your comments about what you see as an accusatory note in my article. You state that I am accusing the Coalition board of using the donated funds to “line their pockets.” I have racked my brain and reviewed everything I have written and fail to see how you could come up with such an understanding.

Obviously, I have criticized the Coalition for some of their spending. Some of it is foolish. Buying flowers for Helen Sommers and Lisa Brown are good examples. Some are ill conceives such as entering into a long-term contract with Washington Media Services with almost no definition of what they will do for $15,000 a year. However, these are debatable items. The board seemed to think these were good ideas. Many do not see it that way. I do not see how being critical of their spending decisions as accusing them of lining their pockets. It is a matter of judgment not theft.

I have criticized the Coalition for their refusal to provide their own board members with financial records and particularly donor records. The request for these records were generated by statements made in a Coalition meeting that certain individuals had never contributed to the Coalition. I was one of the accused—personal attacks again. I have the cancelled checks for my donations. In addition, I was personally aware that other named individual had contributed.

What does this mean? It means that Mark was mistaken — or , it means that the records are inaccurate – or, it means that some donations were never properly credited. Take your pick.

Mark insists he is not mistaken. I asked to see the donation records so that we could determine the truth. Remember, I was on the board and entitled to see the records. Access to the records was refused. So, what is a reasonable conclusion to draw when someone asserts a fact you know to be untrue and claims to have the records to prove the fact but refuses to produce them? Most people would say that person has something to hide. Frankly, I think that Mark is an honorable man and was simply mistaken. I certainly want to believe that.

It appears to me that your reading an accusatory note into my comments means that you drew a different conclusion from his refusal to produce the records.

I do not suspect or accuse anyone of lining their own pockets.

At this point, the Coalition is a group of ten guys. Six of the ten are at-large members. No one else belongs to the Coalition. They can remove any member at will. There is no oversight by anyone. They owe no allegiance to anyone. They have over $100,000 that we, the LEOFF 1 community, have donated. They can spend it any way they see fit. It is no longer a common voice for LEOFF 1 members. That was the goal. That was the dream. It is lost.