By CLAYTON PARK

For 32 years, Del Armstrong has worked as owner and principal engineer of Armstrong Engineers, a small Bellevue firm which employs Armstrong and one employee, and which specializes in sportsfield lighting and other outdoor lighting projects.

In 1995, he started a second company, Soft Lighting Systems, which shares the same small office space as Armstrong Engineers. Armstrong, who has an ownership stake in Soft Lighting along with ³two friends,² is also the companyıs principal engineer.

Soft Lighting manufactures and sells a patented ³full cutoff sports lighting system² that is designed to dramatically reduce off-site glare and spill light commonly associated with standard floodlighting systems, as well improving the quality of the light on the field.

Armstrong says he started Soft Lighting only after several unsuccessful efforts to try to persuade existing lighting makers to manufacture and market his full cutoff lighting system.

He says he didnıt come up with his invention to get rich. Heıs merely an engineer who believed there could be a better way to light sportsfields that would also be responsive to the concerns of neighbors. He points out that he drives a 16-year-old car while commenting: ³I can tell you that I make less than if I worked for Boeing.²

His goal, he says, is simply to come to work every day and ³do the best job I can for my clients.²

What Armstrong canıt understand is why some people question his dual role of serving as an independent lighting consultant to the Seattle Public School District while also owning the company that manufactures the lighting system he recommended.

Armstrong contacted the Jet City Maven last month to set the record straight about who he is and what his companies are all about after learning that a competitor was circulating a story published in the Maven last fall about his involvement in the controversy over the School Districtıs efforts to convince the City Council to raise the maximum height for playfield light poles to 100 feet, up from the current limit of 35 feet tall. This past month the City Council approved the School Districtıs proposal.

Armstrong said the competitor has been trying to suggest to his clients that the Maven article shows that Armstrongıs advice is not to be trusted and that they should hire the competitor, not Armstrong.

He also took exception to the articleıs use of the phrase ³double agent² in quote marks to describe his dual role in the playfield lighting controversy. He complained that the quote marks suggest that one of his colleagues used those words to describe Armstrong at a public hearing when, in fact, those specific words were not used.

As a matter of clarification, it should be noted that the Jet City Mavenıs intent in using the quote marks were meant to signify the reporterıs use of a colloquialism in describing Armstrongıs dual role, which came as surprising news to many of those in attendance at the public hearing when the colleague confirmed that Armstrong was, indeed, both a consultant and lighting manufacturer.

The Jet City Maven stands by its observation that Armstrongıs dual role offers the appearance for a potential conflict of interest. It should also be noted, however, that the article never suggested that Armstrong did anything wrong, nor did it cast judgment on the quality of Armstrongıs products.

Instead, the original Jet City Maven article was intended to show that a conflict of interest exists. Since Armstrong says he was open about his dual role, then he is an innocent businessman trying to make a living. The School District would not comment on why Armstrong was hired.

In the spirit of fairness, the Jet City Maven has invited Armstrong to offer the following response:

First off, Armstrong says, he has never hid the fact that he owns Soft Lighting. ³Iıve fully disclosed to all my clients that Iım also with Soft Lighting ‹ how could I not?,² he asks, adding that itıs no secret to his clients that he strongly believes in the merits of his Soft Lighting System.

Secondly, as a lighting consultant, Armstrong says he never insists that clients to buy the Soft Lighting System. He merely presents it as one of several options for his clients to consider, making sure to point out the pros and cons of each system. ³I donıt try to sell the Soft System. The client decides,² he says, ³even though I donıt believe anybody should put in anything but the full cutoff system. Anything else is irresponsible to neighbors in my opinion.²

When asked why clients should hire him as an independent lighting consultant when they know he also has an ownership stake in a lighting manufacturing company, Armstrong responded, without a hint of boastfulness: ³I am the best sports lighting engineer in the country.²

He explained that he is currently doing work for clients in San Diego, Reno and Phoenix and is a past chairman of the Sportsfield Lighting Committee of the Illumination Engineering Society of North America.

Whatıs more, Armstrong adds, on consulting jobs where a client places an order for his Soft Lighting System, ³I must emphasize that I receive NO PAYMENTS² from Soft Lighting, which he says is run as a separate operation.

Armstrong added that his Soft Lighting System has been successfully implemented in more than 75 sports fields throughout Western Washington. Nearby examples can be found at Bothell High School, where his lighting system is being used to illuminate a baseball field, and at Woodinville High, where the lighting system is used to light the schoolıs baseball, softball and football fields.

Armstrongıs full cutoff lighting concept has also received praise by the executive director of the International Dark-Sky Association, an industry trade group. ³I have seen a recent installation (of the Soft Lighting System) ... and it is a wonderful improvement over most all present day installations,² wrote IDA Executive Director Dave Crawford in the IDAıs February 1996 newsletter. ³The lighting on the field, for players and spectators, is as good or better than any previous sports lighting, and the glare and spill light are remarkably less. ... We hope to see such quality lighting sprouting up everywhere!²

Armstrong said the reason he has been advocating that the School District install taller light poles is because of the fact that the placement of the playfield grandstands prevent light poles from being placed closer to the field. The further away the light poles are from the actual playing field, the taller they need to be to properly light them. ³Determining height is a function of how far the setback is of the aiming point and the top of the defined beam,² he explained.

He added that asking for 100 foot heights was the School Districtıs idea, not his. ³The mounting heights I recommend are typically in the range of 60-90 feet,² he said. ³I never asked for 100 feet. ... Iım not saying weıd never do that, though.²

Armstrong also extended an invitation for Meadowbrook community activist Renee Barton, a vocal opponent of the plans to raise the light pole heights, to meet with him to discuss their differences.

If I could sit with her (Barton), Iıd tell her I think that she and I are exactly on the same team, that our objectives are the same: to reduce the amount of impact on the neighborhood and to provide good lighting for the players,² Armstrong said. ³I respect her right to complain because sheıs a neighbor and thatıs who Iım working for.²

For more information, Armstrong can be reached at 425-885-2195.