1 of 2

Rob McKenna is trying to be a successful “R” politician in this state by following the path forged by Slade Gorton. A big part of that technique involves turning a blind eye to the fact that there is a large, unconstitutionally structured municipality in the Puget Sound region.

Slade Gorton was Attorney General of Washington from 1969 until he entered the US Senate in 1981. During that entire period old-Metro was an unconstitutional local government, flouting the “one-person, one-vote” guarantee to the people of the US by the US Constitution. A court finally ruled it was an unconstitutional government in 1990.

Gorton studiously ignored the fact that there was a large local government acting in an unconstitutional manner – against the rights of the people in this state subject to it – for the entire time he was state AG. It was a smart political move that paid off for Gorton, but it shows he’s unethical. When Gorton left public service he was rewarded with a lucrative job at Preston Gates, now K & L Gates. That law firm was the one making all the money as bond counsel and outside counsel to old-Metro.

McKenna's tacit support of Sound Transit began early on. His misleading protestations about it being “over budget” on light rail prior to 2001 were a smokescreen: that municipality didn’t have a budget for light rail then and what McKenna (and the rest of its advocates) failed to reference were the revenue spending limits that were present in Sound Move. McKenna's actions in support of Sound Transit also includes always taking positions that government's lawyers wanted during his tenure as AG in all the lawsuits. McKenna also plays along with the dirty judiciary in this state putting Sound Transit above the law:

http://susan-owens.webs.com/

What’s perhaps most striking about how closely he’s been aping Gorton’s behavior is the way in which he’s pretending Sound Transit doesn’t suffer from a 14th Amendment infirmity – a constitutional flaw comparable to that which made old-Metro’s structure unlawful.

2 of 2

Our state legislature violated a fundamental constitutional limit in 1992 when it adopted Sound Transit’s enabling statutes.

The enabling legislation for RTAs is ch. 81.112 RCW. It contains a big mistake. When it created this new form of municipality the state legislature violated a limit the US Constitution imposes: state legislatures are prohibited from creating local governments with appointive boards that can set new local laws of general applicability.

There’s a US Supreme Court opinion that addresses this very issue: the 1967 _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ opinion. It is a voters rights opinion based on the 14th Amendment. This is the controlling legal authority in this area, and our state legislature simply ignored it when the enabling statutes for RTAs were created during the 1992 legislative session.

_Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ says the structure of the Board of Supervisors of Suffolk County, New York violated voters rights under the 14th Amendment. The problem the US Supreme Court identified with how that local government had been structured was it was set up with an appointive board and the New York state legislative body had delegated to it powers that were “legislative in the classical sense”. The Court said that particular combination was unconstitutional.

Our state legislature violated that same constitutional limit when it created RTAs.

New York’s state legislature responded to the 1967 _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ opinion in a prompt and responsible manner. It enacted a statute to change the county political structure, and by 1970 Suffolk County had a directly-elected legislature. That fixed the problem.

McKenna knows Gorton had a successful political career (and lucrative post-public service career) and that it included ignoring how old-Metro was unconstitutional. McKenna decided years ago to play along with the interests getting rich off Sound Transit, even though it also was set up in an unconstitutional manner. It has made McKenna’s tenure in state politics comfortable to date. The big question is whether such institutional support is enough to overcome what a lousy job the “R’s” have done around here for decades.

Again, Chris I think it is wishful thinking to describe the race as a dead heat. I assume that you understand statistics well enough to know that just because a race is within the margin of error, it is not a dead heat. The small but consistent lead that Inslee has in the polls may not mean that there is a 95% chance that Inslee is in the lead for a particular poll but for each poll it suggest that Inslee is most likely in the lead. When the polls are considered cumulatively, it is very unlikely that he is not. All the public polls are most simply explained by a trend in which Inslee has steadily gained support over the last 9 months and continues to do so. Arguing that this steady gain has stopped and that the race is now a dead heat requires an interpretive step that flies in the face of the balance of probability.

McKenna is doing well compared with his fellow Republicans and if he hadn't been so foolish as to throw his hat into the fight against Obamacare, he would probably be well ahead.

"McKenna is doing well compared with his fellow Republicans and if he hadn't been so foolish as to throw his hat into the fight against Obamacare, he would probably be well ahead."

This is the most insightful thought on this entire page. I couldn't agree more.

I would also add, if his last campaign hadn't been such a festival of cultural-conservative dog whistles.

I'd previously been quite positive about him til his most recent race -- I like to think there are still sane Republicans, at least at the local level.

But what he had to say in the last election was so creepy, so pandering to the far right, that his bizarre actions on the "Obamacare"suit didn't surprise me much. Disgusted me, but no surprise -- he'd already made it clear that he'd sold his soul.

I'd guess that is why McKenna has such a nice fat war chest -- he's got his own right-wing, Koch-style, out-of-State billionaire somewhere in the background. You know, the guy who bought McKenna's soul.

This article is of no value to me given its partisan nature and background of the author. While I suppose most readers here know that Vance is the former chair of the Republican Party in Washington State and widely credited with its resurgence based at least partly on his involvement in getting McKenna elected as the first Republican AG in 13 years, it would be only fair to put something in the empty bio space above about the author. There are many ways in which I would find this of more value as a reader, or at least more entertaining. As it is, it reads like an obviously cynical memo with little true insight. Meh.

Do you post similar comments for the many articles in Crosscut written by authors with allegiance to or historical ties with the Democrats?

I have posted similar criticisms of Crosscut, and that is essentially what this is, on a number of occasions, regarding authors who represent what I can only assume are a wide spectrum of political beliefs or affiliations, though I did not give them each a litmus test. I cannot specifically recall posting such a comment for an article written by the former chair of the state Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Socialist or Communist Party, and neither can I recall such an article. If such a person wrote such an obvious, partisan, inherently boring and ultimately cynical "article" that assumed a large degree of naivety, or outright stupidity, on the part of the reader, jumped to wishful conclusions and lacked sufficient biographical reference, I might, though I comment here infrequently.

I think I am correct that the biographical tags of some long time writers got lost along with some other useful functionality about 6 months ago when Crosscut "upgraded" its web site - for some reason (I guess it is likely economic) Crosscut has not moved to fix these problems.

In terms of bias, there is nothing special about holding the position of chair of state party as opposed to a large number of other positions where one gets paid to work in support of a particular party.

I agree with other comments- it is poor form, and poor journalism that the reader is not informed of Vance's position vis-a-vis the Republican Party here. Why is the author box empty? It is a thinly veiled attempt, as was his last 'article' in Crosscut, to effect the election outcome by writing what he wishes to be the case as if it were in fact true.

Further, Chris Vance is often described as a Republican public affairs consultant. He references "I am aware of private polling taken since these two media polls were done, which shows the race even closer, essentially tied."

I assume this is private polling done by the party or the campaign? Who did the polling? Why does Vance have access to it? What exactly did it conclude? Can I see it? If not, why not? Is he paid by the GOP? By McKenna? Is he being paid as a GOP consultant to write articles for Crosscut? By whom?

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with all of this if these issues were better spelled out here, and, while I applaud Crosscut for seeking a diversity of input from its writers, this type of piece should only be run as a counterpoint or debate with opinion from say, a Dem consulting firm like Northwest Passage, which is exactly what other media outlets do. Ultimately, though, I'd rather read a third-party perspective which quotes Vance instead of taking the whole press release and slapping it on the page verbatim.

I would also note the final sentence of the August 23 "article" in Crosscut by Chris Vance which reads: "The evidence still says this race is a dead heat." Same message this time around, almost like a talking point, or a strategy.

Of all the various special-interest types who find a forum in Crosscut, Vance is consistently one of the most fair-minded. He mostly reviews the polling data and is careful to identify its internal biases (Rasmussen above, for example). The criticisms of his objectivity seem shrill and without factual basis. If you really want to see something egregious, wait until Crosscut runs another John Carlson screed.

The criticism is mostly of Crosscut. The questions I raised are the ones Crosscut should be asking. Vance is merely doing what he is paid to do.

@ David_Smith. You wrote: "In terms of bias, there is nothing special about holding the position of chair of state party as opposed to a large number of other positions where one gets paid to work in support of a particular party."

I agree, I can't find where I indicated otherwise. Though, I think it fair to note that the author, in his former capacity, worked directly with this candidate to get him elected to AG and, likely, this was part of a long-term strategy to run for Governor. But the added nuance is of little added distinction once you get to the primary point of paid political consultant.

You wrote "I cannot specifically recall posting such a comment for an article written by the former chair of the state Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Socialist or Communist Party, and neither can I recall such an article." The implication was that Chris Vance was particularly biased. There are lots of articles written in Crosscut by people with an axe to grind and a history or ongoing remunerative involvement in politics. As you note above, the fact the Chris Vance's bio no longer appears with his articles as it used to do, is entirely the fault of Crosscut not the author.

I understand. And you are correct, I am a big critic of the way Crosscut presents its pieces as an often indistinguishable mashup of independent and partisan narratives. I was not aware there is a long history of posting work from authors with an "ongoing remunerative involvement in politics." I find that unfortunate and lazy. There are many place I could go to read such screeds, like party websites. I know Crosscut has higher aspirations.

Gentlemen,

Fine. You have successfully identified Chris Vance as a former chair of the Republican Party. Probably ought to be in his bio, but no big deal.

The balloon Chris is trying to fill with hot air is the chance for Rob McKenna to win. Behind the rhetoric, what Chris KNOWS is that the R's had a disastrous primary vote. In what is normally a primary vote skewed towards R's, they didn't win much at all. AND, at 38% in King County, Rob did not run well. Or at least, well enough. He must do much better to win the election.

With Obama and Cantwell poised for big wins statewide and in King County, McKenna is not out, but he's down, and not likely to win.

Finally, and this is really picky on my part but it ticks me off that some people still don't get it, Sound Transit was created by a direct vote of the PEOPLE. As in "WE THE PEOPLE"? Sheesh.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach
Democrat

Finally, and this is really picky on my part but it ticks me off that some people still don't get it, Sound Transit was created by a direct vote of the PEOPLE. As in "WE THE PEOPLE"? Sheesh.

No, Ross – that is not how Sound Transit was created. Sound Transit was created by the state legislature in 1992 (those enabling statutes for RTAs are codified as Ch. 81.112 RCW). The first Sound Transit ballot proposition approved by local voters was in 1996 – that municipality already had been “up and running” for a couple of years by then.

How is it possible you don’t know the state supreme court specifically stated the state legislature created Sound Transit? That is at _Pierce County v. State_, 159 Wn.2d 16, 42 (2006).

You understand that legislatures can violate the constitution, right Ross? The people acting as a legislature violated the state constitution when they approved I-695, and they violated the state constitution again when they approved part of I-776. That is what the state legislature did when it created RTAs and gave them both an appointive board and substantial legislative powers -- it violated the federal constitution.

We know state legislatures are prohibited from creating local governments with appointive boards that can set new local laws of general applicability. A US Supreme Court opinion addresses that very issue: the 1967 _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ opinion. It is a voters rights opinion based on the 14th Amendment. This is the controlling legal authority in this area, and our state legislature simply ignored it when the enabling statutes for RTAs were created during the 1992 legislative session.

Is there something about that you don’t understand, Ross?

Maybe you simply are ignorant of what the supremacy clause of the US Constitution says. It says the US Constitution trumps inconsistent state laws. One state law that is inconsistent with the 14th Amendment is that 1992 statute that created RTAs.

Perhaps you are laboring under the mistaken belief that even though it was unlawful for our state legislature to delegate substantial legislative powers to appointive-board municipalities like RTAs somehow that constitutional limit evaporated into thin air (or something) once voters approved Sound Transit’s ballot measures. Maybe you think local ballot propositions can create implied exceptions to limits on state legislatures the US Constitution imposes, including the limit discussed in the 1967 _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ opinion. Is that the twisted logic you are employing with respect to this issue?

Conspiracy buffs will find this hard to believe, but the editor simply punched the wrong byline for Chris Vance, which omitted the bio we always run. It's now up. The critics are of course right that the past political allegiances should be disclosed for writers. It's also worth noting that Vance has a wide range of current political clients, including some unions with normally Democratic leanings.

With all due respect David, I believe the characterization that this is merely about "past political allegiances" is a bit misleading. Mr. Vance is often referred to by The Seattle Times as a GOP consultant. If he is, in fact, currently paid by the GOP for public affairs then I believe this is relevant. If he is paid by other causes then that is completely irrelevant in the context of this specific discussion. While it makes no reflection on Mr. Vance, I'm afraid it does on Crosscut. As you know, I do in fact believe transparency to the greatest extent possible is a "big deal," especially in this day and age when the lines in media are increasingly blurred. I look forward to Crosscut's future opinion analysis on the Gubernatorial race from a paid political consultant or firm with past or current ties to the Democratic party in general and Jay Inslee in particular. Or better, a third-party hit-piece from any perspective that is as interesting and erudite as those of, say, Paul Constant, F-bombs aside. Or even better, both. As a Gen-X'er to which Crosscut hopes to reach out, party line missives from party operatives have their place but not in a publication I will come back to with any frequency, if at all. I know, I am in the wrong place, throwing rocks at the wine and cheese party. This was my mistake. But I had such high expectations, and still do for Crosscut. Sincerely, best to Crosscut. I hope to come back someday.

Tom's critique is right on and David Brewster's response is . . . surprisingly weak. This is a problem, dudes. I say that as a subscriber who really wants Crosscut to succeed as a quality source of JOURNALISM.

It's fascinating that Chris Vance's response is marked "Editor's Pick" when he proceeds to put his foot in his mouth. We are "going to have to trust" someone who admits to doing business with clients with "legislative issues." Apparently the old rules about conflict of interest have been thrown out the window by Crosscut. Is that because Vance will write for free? Or do you actually pay for his "analysis?"

If the latter, I'd suggest that there are other folks out there who could produce interesting -- and more independent -- analysis than Chris Vance.

Two points:

1. I am not a campaign consultant, meaning I don't generally make my living working for campaigns. I am not being paid by the Republican Party, the McKenna campaign, or any campaign for any office. My clients are organizations who have legislative issues, mostly in Olympia, but also in King County, and before Congress. Crosscut has always asked me to offer my analysis, not do advocacy. I have never hesitated to say Republicans are losing when I think that is the case.

2. Although I am not actively working on campaigns, I do talk to people who are, both Republican and Democratic consultants and pollsters, and I have been told of the non-public, non-media polling I mentioned in the piece. Sorry, you're just going to have to trust me on that....or not, its up to you.

Chris Vance

The point Vance makes here is pretty much the same one I've been making to others for the last week. Yes, the Obama vote might have an effect, but let's assume the national Republicans run a competent campaign from this point on. Let's also suppose there isn't some sort of a scandal here involving either McKenna or Inslee. All that the polls really tell us is that the race is close. So it's going to come down to one thing -- the quality of the TV ads.

Let's face it, those of us who base our votes on the quality of candidate speeches and position papers have already made up our minds. It's the battle for everyone else that counts. And it's all going to play out during the 11 p.m. news, not during those boring parts involving "news stories" but rather during those delightful little 30-second filmed segments you see in between.

Some people have trouble understanding this, but political advertising really is an art. Sometimes a single ad can cut through the clutter -- a "Where's the beef?" or a "I can't believe I ate the whole thing." I've seen it happen in politics before. In 1994, back when I was covering politics for the Tri-City Herald, there were numerous reasons Inslee went down to defeat after a single term in the 4th Congressional District. Silly votes against assault rifles, missed opportunities to win projects for Hanford, yada yada. But I am convinced that the single biggest factor was a radio ad that had Central Washington chortling all summer long. In this ad, a Bill Clinton impersonator pretended to call "Jay Inslee's answering machine" to praise him for all the fine work he was doing for his district, raising taxes and putting the screws to agriculture. Clinton made that cute little chuckle of his and said, "I'll bet those farmers made quite a fuss!" And so on. Honestly, I'll bet that one ad accounted for five points of Doc Hastings' score, maybe more. (Credit to Hastings consultant Brett Bader here.)

Right next door in the 5th Congressional District that same election, a devastating independent ad aired on both radio and television against House Speaker Tom Foley. It highlighted Foley's participation in the lawsuit to overturn Washington's term-limits initiative. It started with dark, spooky music, while an announcer asked, "Why did Tom Foley sue the people of the state of Washington?" How many points do you think that one scored for George Nethercutt? Five? Eight? Again, an ad that turned the tide.

In a statewide race, it's TV that counts, not radio. So we have a civic duty to keep our eyes glued to the tube. Will one campaign or the other come up with a creative, inventive ad that changes the game? So far the ads have been pretty darn good, most of them anyway, but none of them really fall into the home-run category. All I can say is that the nation's special interests have spent millions of dollars arranging our entertainment for the next five weeks, and it is a fine thing they have done, and I just hope they have engaged political consultants for this important work who can give them their money's worth.

-- Erik Smith
Washington State Wire

Now that we all know how Chris Vance earns his keep, is it time to reveal the source of Roger Valdez's income?

Aside from who the author is, as a Seattle Democrat who is taking a serious look at voting for McKenna, I am surprised that his campaign has done nothing at all to specifically reach out to ticket-splittere. There is rampant dissatisfaction among Democrats with the performance of the Democrats in Olympia, but McKenna appears to be running Dino Rossi's campaign with a different face.

If McKenna loses, I sure hope that, when it comes time for him to determine who was primarily responsible for his defeat, he takes a glance in the nearest mirror. I am no campaign professional, but from where I sit, I seer lots and lots and lots of missed opportunities.

From an independent Democrat point of view, if such exists, this vote is a tough one for me. I do not buy Congressman Inslee's views on education, nor what I see as his subservience to the WEA. Nor do I think that his economic solution of more tax incentives for "clean energy" has substance. And finally, Olympia has been too long in one party control. This gives undue power to the "usual suspects."

On the other hand, a vote for the Attorney General brings a lot more than just Rob McKenna to the Governor's Office. Rob is stronger on education, jobs, and a wake up call to the "usual suspects" would be refreshing and rebalance the vested interests who have feasted at the Democratic table too long.

The rub lies in the fact that Mr. McKenna comes with his own "usual suspects." So I end up trying to decide how to vote based on whether I believe McKenna can keep the very conservative wing of his party from undue influence.

So NotFan and I are similarly situated. And I am still undecided.

I don't view the gubernatorial election in personal terms. Inslee seems like a nice enough guy, but I don't really care about that. McKenna seems like a dork or a nerd, but I don't really care about that, either.

What does bug me is that the race looks like dueling bumper stickers. I had been hoping for more out of McKenna: more thoughtfulness, more of an effort to separate himself from the ideological Republicans, and an explicit appeal to Democrats in Puget Sound that would say something like this: "I realize you're not sold on my party affiliation. I understand that it's not easy to cross the line. I'm a different kind of Republican. I will listen to the other side, and, oh by the way, I want your vote."

McKenna isn't doing that. Just like Inslee, he's exudes a sense of entitlement. I just loathe politicians who do that. If there's one thing that really and truly grates on me as a voter, it's the sense of my support being taken for granted or assumed.

Come on, McKenna, work for it. I want to support you -- or at least I'm more open to the idea the idea than at any time I can remember -- but you and your campaign will have to give me some good reasons to do it. Close the sale, bud.

Crossip,

If you're still reading, this is for you.

You're tone is awfully snarky, but under the 1st Amendment, you are entitled.

However, you are misreading Pierce Cty et al v. State, 159 Wn 2nd 16.
Please note "P6" (page 6) if you will:

"In November 1996, 56.6 percent of voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties authorized Sound Transit to collect taxes in the
three county Sound Transit District ( a subset of the Counties)..."

The possibility of Sound Transit, and the powers delegated, are enumerated in the RCW's. Sound Transit is described by the Court as a subset of 'the Counties'.

No violation of the 14th there.

The Counties negotiated and signed interlocking, interlocal agreements, and the voters (the PEOPLE) affirmed at the polls.

I understand you don't like this structure. Fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

But people, such as me, did think this through, the questions you are raising were raised and discussed. After all, I did take an OATH to
"preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United State and the Constitution of the State of Washington.

Sir, with all due respect, you mis-read the law.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach
Snohomish County Council 1990-1993

Ross, your post several days ago asserted this: “Sound Transit was created by a direct vote of the PEOPLE.” I pointed out that you were incorrect about that. Sound Transit, like all municipalities, is a creature of state statute. It exists pursuant to the state statutes set out in RCW Ch. 81.112, and derives 100% of its powers from those (and other) state statutes authorizing its existence. Your post today appears to recognize that reality; you write: “The possibility of Sound Transit, and the powers delegated, are enumerated in the RCW's.”

Had you instead asserted several days ago something like “Sound Transit has put forward ballot propositions that were approved by direct votes of the PEOPLE” you would have been correct, and I wouldn’t have taken exception to it.

You lay an egg in your post today: “No violation of the 14th there.” Yes, there is a violation of the 14th Amendment “there”.

When it created this new form of municipality our state legislature disregarded a limit the US Constitution imposes: state legislatures are prohibited from creating local governments with appointive boards that can set new local laws of general applicability. There’s a US Supreme Court opinion that addresses this very issue: the 1967 _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ opinion. It is a voters’ rights opinion based on the 14th Amendment. It is the controlling legal authority in this area, and our state legislature simply ignored that limit on its powers when the enabling statutes for RTAs were created during the 1992 legislative session.

That quote from the “Pierce County v. State” opinion you provide is not inconsistent with anything I’ve posted. That “56.66%” approval figure of Resolution 75 probably is accurate. The state statutes authorizing RTAs required approval by voters of increases to tax rates up to limits the state legislature set. Again, that vote did not create Sound Transit, it was instead a requirement of the state enabling statutes.

You also reference in your post today the process pursuant to which Sound Transit was formed. You write: “The Counties negotiated and signed interlocking, interlocal agreements, and the voters (the PEOPLE) affirmed at the polls.” The role of the counties in the formation process is set out in the 1992 state statutes (see, RCW 81.112.030). The voters did not “affirm” that process; all the voters did in 1996 was approve Resolution 75 (voters had rejected Sound Transit’s first ballot offering, which was in 1995). The state statutes did not require voter affirmation of either the creation or formation of Sound Transit. A link to Resolution 75 is here:

http://www.soundtransit.org/documents/html/board/resolutions/html/Reso075.html

As you can see, the voters were not asked to affirm anything the counties had done during the formation process; voters just were asked to approve some policies Sound Transit’s board previously had set.

You veer off course here: “Sound Transit is described by the Court as a subset of 'the Counties'.” The majority there is referring to the geographical boundaries of Sound Transit. That district indeed is only parts of each of the three counties. Contrary to what you appear to believe about that sentence from the opinion, the court is not stating that Sound Transit is an agency of the three counties.

Sound Transit is an autonomous municipality, entirely independent of the three counties. Indeed, Resolution 75 says as much in a recital “the Regional Transit Authority for the Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties region (the "RTA") is a duly organized regional transit authority existing under Chapters 81.104 and 81.112 RCW.” Sound Transit’s board adopts the resolutions that set the local laws and policies for that municipality; the county councils have no authority to set policies for Sound Transit. Once the counties took the procedural steps in 1993 to form Sound Transit their role ended.

Do you agree with me on all this?

Your posting today also says this: “But people, such as me, did think this through, the questions you are raising were raised and discussed.” This issue may well have been raised and discussed but the wrong decision was made. Here’s the problem with what the state legislature did -- the 1967 _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ opinion says state legislatures are prohibited from creating local governments with appointive boards that can set new local laws of general applicability. That’s the legal limit the state legislature violated in 1992 when it adopted the RTA enabling statutes.

I hope this clears things up for you (and Crosscut’s readers). It would be great if one of Sound Transit’s lawyers would log in here and address this manifest flaw with how that municipality was structured.

Ross – it would be great if you would provide some more information about this.

You posted this: “But people, such as me, did think this through, the questions you are raising were raised and discussed.”

Here’s some evidence that the key issue was NOT discussed – this is from a 2/26/92 Seattle Times editorial:

“Skeptics in the state Senate wonder aloud about creating a Puget Sound regional transit authority with a federated system of governance.

“They ask if a directly elected governing board might be more representative, and give taxpayers a stronger voice.”

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920226&slug;=1477933

The controlling US Supreme Court precedent is the 1967 _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ opinion. It says substantial legislative powers may not be delegated to appointive board governments.

What that excerpt from the editorial shows is that those state senators were not concerned about complying with that _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ limit on their powers. Do you have any information about why the state legislators might have disregarded what that opinion says when they were creating the RTA enabling legislation in 1992?