Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Field of Schemes

1

The team is funded and run by a bunch of elderly caucasian egomaniacs, who serve the fiscal will of an even bigger Japanese egomaniac.

If they broke the law, it, while dismaying, wouldn't surprise me.

Posted by Gomez | May 9, 2007 3:31 PM
2

I don't see a cite to 36.100.190 in the body of 36.100.010; rather the later incorporates the severability provision of the former.

I would say the PFD is "hiring a service" w/in the meaning of .010(5), not entering into a purchase or sale contract w/in the meaning of 43.19.1906.

Further, 43.19.1906 begins "insofar as practicable" ... and a court could drive a truck through that kind of language. Esp. where you're talking about hiring an agent as against building a structure.

Posted by 9x | May 9, 2007 3:35 PM
3

ln 1 should read "rather the former incorporates the the severability provisions of the latter."

Posted by 9x | May 9, 2007 3:39 PM
4

This story, too, was already in the Times, two Saturdays ago - after it was all laid out in a Weakly blog a week earlier. Here's the link:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/blogs/dailyweekly/2007/04/safecos_views.php

At least you scooped the other members of your staff, anyway.

Posted by Blondie | May 9, 2007 7:02 PM
5

Way to do the bidding of the assholes that want to ruin our views Josh.

Posted by RustyT | May 9, 2007 7:27 PM
6

Blondie @4,

Neither The Seattle Times story nor the Weekly blog reported that the $100K contract runs up against state contracting rules.

Young and Anderson are both top flight reporters. I don't know why neither reporter explored that issue.

That's the issue I was interested in.

Posted by Josh Feit | May 9, 2007 7:35 PM
7

How about posting the Fearey contract so we can read what they're doing for $100k?

Posted by a reader | May 9, 2007 9:10 PM
8

How about posting the Fearey contract so we can read what they're doing for $100k?

Posted by a reader | May 9, 2007 9:11 PM
9

Josh,

The other reporters didn't pick up the contract because it's not an issue. 9x @2 is right that the PFD is hiring a service or entering into a consulting contract. These have much more flexible rules than purchasing goods.

A veteran government reporter knows that.

Posted by elrider | May 10, 2007 10:57 AM
10

That's correct - no public bid needed for those deals. The PFD's attorneys, Preston Gates, cleared that ahead of time, and you should have checked with them. The contract is also for UP TO $100,000 - meaning the firm could earn much less. As fan and critic of the PFD/Mariners, I'm familiar with their operations - and the story is really about the battle over the views.

Posted by BadBrad | May 10, 2007 12:24 PM
11

I just read your story and it's wrong and should be corrected. You say a public bid is required, and it isn't - something you might have learned if you called someone who knows about these deals (try the state auditor). As for that "slap to the voters" ("the Mariners PFD was created to watchdog the public's investment. But it seems someone should be watchdogging them"),that's exactly what the PFD is trying to do, rightly or wrongly, in preserving the investment in stadium views for the public. But then we know how a few niggling facts can ruin a good story.

Posted by Pierce | May 11, 2007 8:30 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).