News Pedersen Clarifies
posted by on January 5 at 16:48 PM
Newly elected 43rd District state house Representative Jamie Pedersen (D-43, Capitol Hill, U-District, Wallingford) wasn’t calling me back about the curious bill that I’d discovered he’d prefiled. The bill, cosponsored by Republican Representative Jay Rodne (R-5, East King County), would tweak rules governing corporate boards. Pedersen’s apparent reluctance to call back got my Spidey senses tingling, and I started thinking the bill had something to do with helping Pedersen’s corporate law firm, Preston Gates & Ellis, get the upper hand in its recent merger with Pittsburgh law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham.
Well, Pedersen called back today to explain the bill, and I was wrong about the purpose of the bill. (And the reason he didn’t call me back? He’s been busy with freshman orientation, including a meeting today, he said, with the Washington State Supreme Court justices. Pedersen reports that he had to hold his tongue. The Supremes, get this, schooled the freshman about the no-no of passing unconstitutional legislation. Again: Pedersen said he had to hold his tongue.)
Anyway, here’s what I had Slogged two days ago when I found that the very first piece of legislation Pedersen had offered was the corporate governance bill:
Pedersen’s HB 1041 would “modify plurality voting for directors.” The bill tweaks rules governing corporate boards. I’m not sure if this is a top priority of Pedersen’s corporate law firm, K&L/Gates (formerly Preston Gates & Ellis), or if it’s some housekeeping bill that an agency dropped in the freshman’s lap, or if it’s a burning personal priority of Pedersen’s. Anyway, that’s Seattle’s newest legislator’s first shot.I have a call into Pedersen so he can clarify.
First of all, Pedersen says the corporate boards bill is not the first bill he acted on. He said his first legislative act was signing onto the bill that would throw out the 60 percent approval hurdle for passing school levies—instituting a simple majority requirement. Pedersen surmises that the bill hasn’t been filed yet because the plan is to get every single Democrat to sign on to it.
As for the corporate boards bill, Pedersen explained that the proposed legislation is a priority for the Washington State Bar Association, and the Bar lobbyist handed it off to Pedersen because of Pedersen’s expertise in corporate law. The issue, which has zero effect on Pedersen’s private law firm, is this: Sometimes corporate board members for public companies get elected to boards with simple pluralities instead of real majorities. Pedersen’s bill—which he says makes board members more accountable to shareholders—raises the requirements for getting elected to a board seat by pushing a majority standard.
Josh, this post is exactly upside down. You should reverse the order of the paragraphs.
See, now that is a good thing - requiring a 50 percent plus 1 vote for board members to be elected by share OWNERS.
Wow Josh!
You spoke with Osama Hussein bin Pedersen, also known as He-Who-Was-Elected-With-Like-88%-Of-The-Vote-Despite-The-SECB's-Constant-Taunting, and lived to tell the tale!
It's a belated Christmas miracle.
Also, note the following:
Attorneys are forbidden by law from organizing in the regular corporate form governed by RCW Chapeter 23B (if memory serves, Washington's version of the Revised Model Business Corporations Act).
They can, however, form something called a professional service corporation. This is provided for in RCW Chapter 18.100.
Notwithstanding that, many law firms are organized as either straight parntnerships (RCW Ch. 25.04), limited liability partnerships (also RCW Ch. 25.04), or professional limited liability companies (RCW Ch. 25.15).
The first paragraph of the bill states the following:
As you can see, all of these changes relate to RCW Ch. 23B: the code provision governing regular, for-profit business corporations.
So it is highly unlikely they would ever apply to a law firm, (a) because law firms aren't organized under this code provision, and (b) because many law firms (especially big ones) don't do business in the corporate form.
Why get elected if you are going to hold your tongue with the dipshits that threw out gay marriage in their intellectually and legally weak ass decision. Seriously, I am TIRED of folks going through all the effort to run, just to be opiated ninnies once in office. He basically represents Moscow, why not yell like a gay lefty at the assholes that disenfranchised him??!!!? Lame.
It sounds like a good bill, and a reasonable reform. Jamie seems to be starting well out the gate. I wish he hadn't held his tongue, though, with the justices. Justice Madsen, in particular, needs to be reminded -- politely but firmly -- of her craven abandonment of the constitutional principles she claimed to believe in when campaigning for reeelection.
The fear about sending Pedersen to Olympia was that he'd be little more than a reliable D vote and a spectator. I hope his choice of politeness over polite confrontation in this instance is not a sign that those fears were justified. Time to sack up, Jamie...you bought a seat at the table, now it's time to pound your fist on it.
Josh,
Is there a correction buried in all this. "Sorry we went early with an incomplete story and got it wrong"?
Take your medicine, short guy.
It is a bit of a stretch to belittle, mock and abuse this guy while the election is underway - and now assume he owes giant explanations for every move - even before the session starts.
Josh, do you think all this up on your own?
News value - zero. Score, Jamie one - Stranger - minus 5.
(is it true Stephanie Pure is going to run against Dave Della, and that is why you openly called him stupid? He is about the only council member who is direct and speaks his mind and takes positions. Stupid, hardly ... your City Hall insiders are blinded by ego and an under current of Seattle style racism. As we have all experienced, when minority leaders come to the fore ground, the first comment against them from the larger white establishment is they are not too intelligent.....)
Sidney,
So, let me get this straight.
You don't like that I had questions about Pedersen's first bill. And you don't like that The Stranger reported the word at city hall, namely: That Della's not too sharp.
You chalk "our" criticism of Della up to our "white establishment" bias.
But wait: Do our advesarial questions for Pedersen—a white attorney for establishment Preston Gates—represent our white establishment bias? Oh, wait. Pedersen is gay. So, obviously, we're just picking on him because he's a minority. Oh but wait, the Stranger is the "Gay Paper."
Hmmm?
Sorry, but you're not making much sense, Sidney.
And then you write:
"when minority leaders come to the fore ground, the first comment against them from the larger white establishment is they are not too intelligent....."
Sidney, did you think that one up on your own, or are you a trite, 10th grader? Sheeesh. Grow up, man.
Here's an idea: Go to one of Della's committee meetings. Tell me what you think then.
Heads up all of you anti-Pedersen Sloggers. Insofar as can be determined, Pedersen legally won the election in November by virtue of having received the most votes. Political courtesy - if nothing else - suggests you refrain from sloggily molesting him until he actually is sworn into office and does something.
You may recall how shabbily Bill Clinton was treated by the right wing upon his 1993 inauguration. He (and Hillary) did not receive a scintilla of what is commonly termed a "100-day political honeymoon". Pre-swearing in, you are treating Pedersen like some unentitled arriviste.
Unless I misread the situation, it would seem most Pedersen haters are liberals, many gay. Yet you assail him for being a weasel, a stooge, a lobbyist, too gay, not gay enough, directly connected to Jack Abramoff, anti-gay-bar-attending, pro-law firm joining, badly dressed and hair-cutted.
The huge number of pro-bono hours Pedersen has committed to defeating anti-gay marriage enemies alone almost certainly exceeds anything any of us have done recently for the public welfare. Do any of you actually know him? Or is it the purified Stranger party-line Kool-ade that has shriveled your cerebral taste buds?
You may be acquainted with an organization aptly named for taking your next few baby steps: it's called "Move-On-Dot.Org" - board the bus, kids, it's just about to pull out of the Getoveryourself Station. Get back to trashing Jamie say about 100 days from now.
Josh - the Stranger has a strange way of getting really fixated on topics.
The recent Jamie seems one of them. The legislature is about to convene for a long session and amid all the real news, the news editor questions what this political nobody newbie is going to do.
Far more interesting is what is Ed Murray going to do in his new role ??? Ed is sure fire news value, a big time Seattle political player.
You guys are on Jamie's back - and it makes little sense. The election is over, you lost, or your friend lost. Get over it.
Jamie is very, very intelligent, hard working and honest. I think he will do well in the legislature. Give the guy a chance.
But then, obsessing is kinda fun, isn't it? But hardly news, and you, Josh, not Dan, are the titled news editor.
Andrea,
I scanned the prefiled bills. News. I did a few different slog posts noting the interesting ones. Murray hadn't prefiled any bills.
As a footnote to one Slog post I did about a gun control bill that a few House Ds filed in defiance of Chopp (again: News), I noted a bill that Pedersen—Seattle's newest legislator— had filed by himself with one other R. That bill seemed curious to me (and to a lot of commenters.)
So, I made some calls to figure out what the deal with the bill was. No one, including Jamie, would call me back to explain it. I had some fun teasing out on the Slog what the bill could be about. Pedersen eventually called me back and explained the bill. And I reported on that. I enjoyed talking to Jamie, and he seemed to enjoy explaining his bill.
This is hardly a big deal. As for Murray, I recently did a column trashing Murray for coupling Sound Transit and RTID... urging him to undo it this session.
As for Pure: A recent commenter questioned our endorsement—calling it a tatical mistake. I explained, in a comment, why we endorsed her, acknowledging that, yeah, maybe it was a tactical mistake. But we (not just me, by the way, but the edit board) thought she was the best candidate.
To be honest: I forgot that Pure even ran.
If I've been paying too much attention to anyone here on Slog, I'd say it's Chopp.
Yes, the Stranger gets obsessed with issues. Pedersen and Pure are not among them. How about the boulevard/transit option? I'd say I'm obsessed with that.
You, Andrea, sound obsessed yourself. And you're thinking way too hard about my brief Slog coverage of Pedersen.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).