Seattle Sun Newspaper - Vol. 7, Issue 12, December 2003

Copyright 2003 Seattle Sun. Please feel free to use the article below in your research. Be sure to cite the Seattle Sun as your source.

Seattle Sun Letters to the Editor

Score one for the buskers

On Oct. 23, in a legal victory for street performing, Seattle Municipal Court Judge Michael S. Hurtado dismissed with prejudice a charge of second degree criminal trespass against violinist Joe Fulton, a frequent street performer at the Pike Place Market.

Fulton was arrested by Seattle Police on July 27 for street performing on Market Street during Ballard's Seafood Fest. Seafood Fest organizers believed that their event permit, issued by the City, empowered them to have police remove Fulton from the festival site (which included the sidewalk on Market Street) because, by virtue of his open violin case, he was engaging in illegal vending.

In dismissing the charges made by the Seattle City Attorney against Fulton, Judge Hurtado explained that anyone who stops to listen to a street performance is free to walk away without tipping the performer, thus such activity could not be classified as vending. Vending at street fairs typically refers to business conduct at food and craft booths which have been issued permits.

Citing the valuable contribution made by street musicians to local culture, Judge Hurtado specifically mentioned legendary street performer Jim Page and other Market performers.

Successfully representing Joe Fulton was attorney Isak Bressler.

It will be interesting to see what impact it will have on street performing at next year's Ballard Seafood Fest as well as at other City-permitted events that occur on public property.

JONNY HAHN, Crown Hill

Council needs to 'Do the right thing'

(Editor's note: The following is an open letter to City Council President Peter Steinbrueck:)

The purpose of this letter is to follow up to the Nov. 12 Council of the Whole meeting of the Seattle City Council and formerly request that you act immediately to comply with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine of Washington State as follows:

1. In accordance with Section 42.36.060 of the RCW, "Quasi-judicial proceedings Ex parte communications prohibited, exceptions," two pieces of information have been placed on the record: the EXISTENCE of ex parte communications between former Governor Rosellini, Rick's attorney, Gil Levy, and each of the Councilmembers, and a public announcement that ex parte communications have occurred.

However, this section of the law ALSO requires that the ACTUAL CONTENT of these communications be placed on the record, and this has not yet occurred. Only the contents of the e-mailed ex parte communications have been added to the record, not the contents of the private meetings.

In addition, this section of the law also states that we have the right to rebut the substance of each communication at each hearing.

Instead, at each hearing, the public has been given the opportunity to "rebut the record" that is, the EXISTENCE of the ex parte communications; not the content. We have only been given a total of eight minutes to speak to the Council (specifically, three minutes on your request to supplement the record on adding the updated crime report and five minutes to argue the merits of the whole case). Because the existence of the communications has never been in contention and the content of the communications has never been disclosed, there has been nothing to rebut.

This is not in compliance with the law. We hereby request to be permitted the opportunity to rebut the CONTENT of the ex parte communications. This requires that first, the content of these communications be made a part of the public record and, second, that we have a scheduled opportunity to cross examine each Councilmember on what actually occurred at the ex parte meetings. Without such cross examination, in light of the proven and illegal campaign contributions, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE to know whether the voting will occur in a fair and unbiased manner.

2. In accordance with Section 42.36.080 of the RCW, "Disqualification based on doctrine Time limitation for raising challenge," it states: "Anyone seeking to rely on the appearance of fairness doctrine to disqualify a member of a decision-making body from participating in a decision must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for disqualification is made known to the individual." We have done this. At this time, because the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission has not yet completed its investigation into these ex parte communications, the impact of the illegal campaign contributions on the integrity of this rezone vote is highly questionable. As a result, we formally request that:

A. You move to delay the vote on this rezone until the SEEC has completed its investigation, the results have been made public, and the community has ample time to respond.

B. You move to limit the participation of affected Councilmembers as appropriate based on the results of this investigation.

These last two recommendations were made by Tim Burgess, the former head of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, in a Letter to the Editor of The Seattle Times, incorporated herein by reference (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion

/2001787128_burgess10.html). His recommendations are more than fair and reasonable in light of the circumstances.

As the Council President, please do the right thing and act to protect the integrity of our Council and City government without forcing our community to sue for it.

KELLY MEINIG, Lake City