'Buildergate' - The plot thickens...

October 1, 10:19 AMSnohomish County Progressive ExaminerChad Shue

Previous Next

4 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Snohomish County Progressive Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Yesterday I wrote about “Buildergate”; the potentially damaging allegations being raised about Dino Rossi’s possibly improper fundraising activities involving the BIAW, his financial benefactors in his race for governor.  This morning, in an Associated Press article in the Seattle Times, I found more questions than answers.

Dino Rossi - "Buildergate" building strength?

In the AP piece, written by Curt Woodward, Rossi denies any wrong doing and says that he only phoned the various members of the Master Builders Association to help smooth over an inter-county dispute within the organization.

“Today, Rossi told The Associated Press that he called the county builders officials simply to smooth over a dispute about political cooperation between the King and Snohomish group and the statewide BIAW.

The schism included fundraising, campaigning and lobbying efforts, Rossi said, but he denied ever talking to the county builders about specifics regarding political spending.

"They weren't happy with each other, and what they did beyond that was up to them," Rossi said. "I never talked money or anything like that with them — the specifics of, 'You've got to put 200 grand in this account or that account.' "

King and Snohomish Master Builders Association officials also disputed the liberal activists' allegations, saying Rossi and the group did not discuss fundraising as alleged.”

OK. So Dino would have us believe that he phoned a group of potential contributors (who were being specifically targeted by the BIAW for a substantial contribution to their “Rossi Fund”), not to discuss any possible financial contributions but rather to act as a mediator in an internal MBA dispute. That would be fine…except

“Asked to clarify, spokeswoman Allison Butcher said she believed Rossi "discussed his prospective candidacy, not fundraising." A subsequent request to speak with the three officials in question went unanswered.”

Now let’s remember, from the official minutes taken at the MBA Chair Officers meeting on May 21st, 2007,

“Doug moved into discussion regarding the request from BIAW to use excess money from the ROII refund to fund the BIAW's war chest. Preliminary numbers on the excess are approximately $150,000 - $200,000. So far, Pierce and King/Snohomish Counties are the only associations who have not made a commitment. Pierce County has had concerns that it is too early and there isn't enough information as to whom they would support.

Doug, Joe, and John reported that they had received a call from Dino Rossi. John stated that he reiterated the Board's sentiment to Rossi, stating that it was too early, and the association had building issues that needed to be resolved. Doug indicated that he would call Daimon and let him know that the MBA has taken no action, though it doesn't mean that the board won't take action later. September would be a good time to make a decision. “

So the spokesperson believes Dino was phoning to discuss his “prospective candidacy” while, in the official minutes, there is a specific reference to Dino Rossi in connection with a discussion on a fund raising request from the BIAW.

There is a statement from one of the board Chairs saying he had told Rossi that “it was too early and the association had building issues that needed to be resolved.” Too early for what? If you take Dino’s explanation, I guess it was too early for them to reconcile their differences in the dispute he was attempting to smooth over. If, on the other hand, you see what is put right before you, you realize that it was too early for the organization to commit funds to the BIAW “war chest”. If you then accept that explanation, you must conclude that Dino Rossi was certainly involved in soliciting funds for a political campaign.

Which is it? I think this is an area that requires a more intensive review by the Attorney General. What do you think?

Peace,
Chad Shue