Well, HB2350 is out there. Currently it is in the House Ways and Means Committee and we hope that it does not get a hearing and dies. Obviously others think differently. So, people from both sides of this are actively lobbying the Legislature. Emails are flying throughout the LEOFF community throwing out talking points and making claims of everything from nirvana to apocalypse.

Unfortunately many of the claims being put forth are simply statements with absolutely no backing in data or reasoning. The idea seems to be “I said it, so it must be true.”  Depending on which side of the debate people fall, individuals are saying, “Yes, this is true.” or “No, this is false.”  They then promptly forward the information to everyone they know without further consideration.

That is just the nature of advocacy. The point is to obtain an outcome. We all know that and that is why we should make a critical evaluation of every claim.

Most of these claims are made in good faith, i.e. the person who says it thinks it is correct. But sometimes the person making the claim just focuses on those items that supports his position and conveniently leave out some of the details that could adversely affect the argument. That creates a good guy – bad guy scenario where the opposing party can then be demonized. Of course that furthers the rancor and exacerbates the difficulties in ever finding common ground.

For that reason we try to avoid making flat statements like,”HB2350 is illegal.” We try to back up such claims with legal opinions and logic. That is why you will see reviews from our attorneys posted for public view.

The fact that two individuals can read a proposed bill and come away with different understandings of what it means is not so much a question of who is right but, rather, an indication that the bill itself is not clear and is open to different interpretations. It does not mean that one person is right and the other is evil.

The heart of the problem with HB2350 is the same as with HB2097. It was done in secret and the stakeholders did not have the opportunity to work through the proposal to insure it dealt concisely with all concerns. Therefor rather than agreeing on what the words in the bill mean we are forced to make our own assessment of the meaning.

The major difference between the two sides on this bill is that we backup our understanding with legal opinions and logic. This is something the opposition has decided not to do.