Gee... I've been inundated with Russell supporters crawling out from under their rocks.

.
Jon Russell stopped by my blog this evening... or was it one of his surrogates? There've been an even dozen or so, but oddly, only 3 IP's identifying the perps, so to speak.

Ahhh.... no matter. This little gift was left on my doorstep, not unlike the ubiquitous burning bag of poop.

Wow I didn't know we wanted councilman to be reviewing all the cities expense reports. This is really one of the most pathetic ways to try to rope a candidate into the scandal. I guess if we are going to start this maybe we need to know why veterans administration had issues while Castillo was there with the hospitals and maybe we need to check to see if any of Castillos clients lost any money under his advice from Edward Jones.

I kinda believe this is Russell himself, but it could be any one of those with the flawed reasoning process that would allow them to support a political mercenary like Russell.

So, since I just finished my gym workout, what say I cool off by crushing this moron's little anon gesture of idiocy here and now.... OK?

Let's set the table, shall we?

The Mayor of Washougal has some problems with city credit card(s) and a little trip to Vegas. The guy running against her, who has his own issues, blew the whistle in a most timely manner to inflict maximum damage on the good mayor, all in the name of political altruism, you understand.

That, of course, is neither here nor there. What happened is that Jon Russell, loyal and good fellow that he is, tossed his mayor under the bus in RECORD time. That, of course, is his privilege.

But in his haste to avoid the splatter, he neglected to mention that he and 2 other council members for the good city of Washougal sit in DIRECT oversight of the very credit cards in question.

Now, apparently, something was said at the behest of the this little group to the good mayor to ask her to reimburse the city for the copious amounts of alcohol she apparently charged on the taxpayer dime will "conferencing" in Vegas.

Clearly, like herpes, what happens in Vegas may not, necessarily, stay in Vegas... particularly when there's a paper trail. Right, Stacee?

All of that said, Mr. Russell, best known for his abysmal failure in ramming the humongous Port Tax increase down our throats; is, along with his two compadres, DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING THESE EXPENDITURES.

Well, it would seem that this merry little band approved them all, save for the booze.

But then, our erstwhile congress-critter wannabe, having completely FAILED to do the job he was responsible for doing, spewed thusly:

"I don't think these are cracks, they're craters," he said. "It looks like a pattern that is not being dealt with and that is not being brought to the attention of the council."

Odd, that. Since this little committee of 3 is personally responsible for reviewing EACH of these credit card expenditures and since they DID nail Sellers for drinking the booze on the taxpayer dime....

HOW CAN THIS SLIMEBALL ALLEGE THAT THIS WASN'T BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNCIL????

It was, of course. But the knee jerk reaction of this product of Chicago politics was and is to put as much distance as fast as possible between himself and the good mayor. So, instead of publicly admitting HE had screwed up as well, it came out deny, deny, and then, well, deny.

That leads us to these increasingly lame little comments Russell (and or his Winged Monkeys) are leaving here in blog land.

First of all, let me re-iterate: although I am a professional in politics, I have no professional relationship with any congressional candidate. I personally know both Mr. Russell and Mr. Castillo and I have had professional relationships with both of them; both while they were working for HROC.

That said... here we go.

"Wow I didn't know we wanted councilman to be reviewing all the cities expense
reports"

Is this were I point out how utterly irrelevant what "we wanted" is? Whether you WANTED it or not, THAT IS PART OF HIS JOB. That "we" may or may not "want it" matters not one wit.

This is really one of the most pathetic ways to try to rope a candidate into the
scandal.

Perhaps. But his response to all of this is the most pathetic aspect of it. I guess he should have thought of it before he tried to dump all the responsibility on somebody else when he bears part of it himself.

If he had the guts to take some level of responsibility for this, then we wouldn't be having this little chat. But he lacks that kind of courage and integrity.

That, of course, is why I would support Baird over Russell. Because we already HAVE someone representing us with an unethical, gutless background. Why should we replace him with somebody else?

I guess if we are going to start this maybe we need to know why veterans administration had issues while Castillo was there with the hospitals and maybe we need to check to see if any of Castillos clients lost any money under his advice from Edward Jones.

Really?

That's the kind of stretch ol Jon is known for, but I guess the question is this:

Was Castillo elected to either a position in the VA or Edward Jones?

Was Castillo required to go over the credit card expenditures of a mayor while he was in either of those positions?

No? Then why would you so moronically bring this up?

Washougal City Councilman Jon Russell HAD A JOB TO DO. HE VERY CLEARLY DID... NOT... DO IT, AND THEN THREW THE MAYOR UNDER THE BUS TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS INACTION.

That you don't happen to like that doesn't change it one wit. The ISSUE is that it was RUSSELL'S JOB AND HE DIDN'T DO IT.

And dude (or dudette, as the case may be) if you don't like it, that's just too damned bad.
.

Lies by Omission: Why did Jon Russell neglect to mention that he has direct oversight of Washougal city credit cards?

.
Man... you can take Jon Russell out of Chicago politics, but it seems you can't take Chicago politics out of Jon Russell.

Well, folks, it looks like things are spinning out of control when it comes to the keepers of the Washougal check book... or in this case, credit card.

Unfortunately, the voters of Washougal now seem to be faced with a choice: they can choose someone who, at best, appears incompetent or they can choose a liar for mayor. Not a choice *I* would envy.

Stacy Sellers is having a tough week. Perhaps she deserves one, since, according to the local version of Pravda, Sellars charged, among other things, a "...$57 'surf and turf' dinner. An $88 bottle of wine. A $72 bill at the Eye Candy Lounge & Bar." while on some sort of "official trip" to Vegas.... although why a trip to Vegas for the mayor of Washougal would be official is, perhaps, a subject for another post. (Take some time and run a google search on the "Eye Candy Lounge & Bar" for pictures of others engaging in some distinctly "non-mayor" like activities. I guess what happens in Vegas is reported in the Columbian.)

Apparently, the whistle blower in all this is one Sean Guard, who just happens to be running against Sellers for mayor and who just happened to drop this dime THIS week (as opposed to, say, after the election) not, because, as you might think, he was trying to engage in any kind of politics; oh no. To hear him tell it,

"Guard said he did not make the complaint to the auditor's office to win votes; he did it to put an end to the misuse of public dollars."

Right. And I'm Mayor of Munchkin City and I run the Lollipop Guild.

I don't really care one way or the other, but Guard needed to have a surrogate blow the whistle here if he wanted to maintain the high ground. Having someone on the inside as it seems he does, who tipped him off and then covered the information transfer with a FOIA so HE, PERSONALLY could shill Seller's idiocy puts the lie to his claim, quoted above.

There is no altruism in politics. Guard announced this to drive a stake through Seller's political heart; he should have been man enough to just admit it. Leave the game playing to the slimy worms in the White House.

That writ, where was Jon Russell in all of this?

Well, yesterday, we received his version of what I call "Prairie Dog" from Mr. Russell.

You've seen those little critters on TV, haven't you? When they're trying to get a handle on what's happening... on what's going on.... you get this:

Here's what Mr. Russell had to tell us:

Council member Jon Russell said he believed the findings showed that the problems were bigger than oversights.

"I don't think these are cracks, they're craters," he said. "It looks like a pattern that is not being dealt with and that is not being brought to the attention of the council."

Russell said he wants the council to hold a special meeting to look into each problem and discipline responsible parties, even ask for resignations if necessary.

"I don't see how we can trust this administration in moving forward with anything," he said.

Well, there may be some element of truth to that last part... the part about "trust" and the lack of it.

But not, I'm sure, the way Russell meant when he spewed this "What? Who, me?" crap.

Because, as it turns out....

JON RUSSELL SAT IN DIRECT OVERSIGHT OVER CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURES.

Here's what the Columbian buried today about Russell's little meat hooks being buried in this particular pie:

The people responsible for that oversight are members of the city council. Three council members — Russell, Lou Peterson and Paul Greenlee — make up the finance committee tasked with approving city employees' and officials' receipts and spending.

The expenditures are first submitted to the finance department, and then go to the mayor for approval, Russell said. Each week, the mayor sends the finance committee members e-mails with the accounts payable receipts and statements for their review and approval, he (Russell) said. Sometimes the statements have details of specific charges, sometimes they only include the employee's name and how much they are to be reimbursed, Russell said. Unless the committee members ask to see the details of those reimbursements, oftentimes they don't know the specifics. And many times expenditures are approved as long as they fall within the amount included in the annual budget, he said.

Russell said he does not recall whether he saw details of the Las Vegas trip expenditures.

"It's not at all a perfect system," Russell said.

The committee members do not meet to discuss the expenditures; that practice ended several years ago in favor of council workshops, he said. Instead, members are told to go to Sellers with questions, Russell said.

"We have been told by the mayor not to talk to department heads to get answers, that everything has to go through her," he said.

The use of city money to purchase alcohol was questioned by the committee and reviewed earlier this summer by the city council. Sellers was notified that the practice was prohibited by city policy and she reimbursed the city for the cost of alcohol charges, Russell said. City officials were not available to comment on the amount of the reimbursement.

"She was under the impression for some reason that it was permissible," he said.

So, Russell KNEW about the booze... but then claims he DIDN'T RECALL whether he "SAW SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE LAS VEGAS TRIP EXPENDITURES?"

HOW LIKELY IS THAT?????

OK, here are the possibilities.

Russell, who sits on the committee with DIRECT oversight over these expenditures, in fact, didn't know about them; which means that he's guilty of misfeasance;

OR,

Russell, who sits on the committee with DIRECT oversight over these expenditures, in fact, DID know about them, and then lamely engaged in the time-honored "I don't recall" lie, in which case, he's both a liar AND guilty of misfeasance.

Now, the definition of "misfeasance" is

"the unintended, accidental errors, mistakes taken place while managing the business, office or other responsibilities entrusted on a person, causing loss or damage or unfortunate situations out of such mistakes. A misfeasance become a malfeasance when the act was performed with an intention to cause loss."

Now, was Russell's incompetence intentional? I doubt it.

But does that make him any the less incompetent or incapable of performing the task of city councilman, let alone congressman?

That conclusion seems fairly straightforward to me.

.

Jon Russell's firm grasp of Washougal City administration.

.
As you may have heard, Jon Russell, political mercenary extraordinaire and Washougal City Councilman, is running to represent us in Congress, God forbid.

Well, today he got his name in print as the crusading guardian of "The People's Money." (copyright 2009)

Stacy Sellars, who will, it appears, soon become the former mayor of Washougal, finds her butt firmly affixed to a red hot grill of a hot seat in the matter of a few missing dollars from the Washougal city accounts. Like, well, something on the order of 100,000 of them.

At this point, I don't believe anyone knows what's going on with this money. There's a lot more to examine... to consider... to weigh.

On the surface, it looks pretty bad. Typically, in situations like this, the rats will scurry away at warp speed. But is throwing someone you've supported politically, or a major part of the city staff under the bus to avoid the splatter the way to do it?

Council member Jon Russell said he believed the findings showed that the problems were bigger than oversights.

"I don't think these are cracks, they're craters," he said. "It looks like a pattern that is not being dealt with and that is not being brought to the attention of the council."

Russell said he wants the council to hold a special meeting to look into each problem and discipline responsible parties, even ask for resignations if necessary.

"I don't see how we can trust this administration in moving forward with anything," he said.

In this country, including Washougal, everyone is innocent unless proven guilty.

And that everyone includes the administration of the city that Russell, is, well, tasked to administer.

Russell; who is, as a member of the city council, one of those charged with the oversight of the very administration he now works so hard to condemn, wasted no time in taking what he believed to be the "appropriate steps" to step out of the way of the poop storm.

This misfeasance/malfeasance happened on Russell's watch. Of course, he's been blowing off some meetings and so forth as a result of running for Congress, but hey, who cares about missing votes and such when your eyes are on the much-bigger prize?

Clearly, changes have to be made in the systems of accounting in Washougal. But engaging in these theatrics as part of his political soap opera doesn't speak well for him, since, like it or hate it, it is HIS city and this happened on HIS watch.

Hey, I know: maybe one of those "resignations" Russell's so hot about could be his own? Watchcha think? Would THAT be a hoot?

Imagine... actually taking responsibility for something he'd done... or in this case, failed to do.

I won't hold my breath.

.