Slog - Comments on Flipping Out Locally Since 1991

Comment by DOUG.

DOUG. — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:47:48 -0800

Fix your link on the SPD story.

Comment by Anon

Anon — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:51:59 -0800

questionable SPD conduct.

Comment by Josh Feit

Josh Feit — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:53:35 -0800

fixed it.

Comment by what the?

what the? — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:58:08 -0800

Underwood is suing Hartman for a million bucks? What an ass. As ECB points out, "lists" are nebulous...the info is on the internet for anyone to get and use. The usual suspects give to all the same candidates. Fundraising is not rocket science, it's discipline and attitude. Colby's clients are paying him for internet research and scheduled call-time and he's overcharging. The bloom is off the rose.

Comment by blah

blah — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:31:41 -0800

ECB=Lame & Boring!

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:35:02 -0800

Interesting. One wonders why Underwood didn't consider driving duties to be critical for a very short candidate with low BMI when she drank, though.

Campaigns aren't just about your strengths, they're about your weaknesses, as the Prop 1 RTID/ST2 people learned when we whooped their asses soundly.

(I love ECB articles, blah)

Comment by vesuvius

vesuvius — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:39:56 -0800

@4
you should assume that colby had cross tabbed all his lists and made a huge relational database and of course the ex employee didn't wipe it from her computer. it is valuable info not easily found on the internet. so why should the ex employee get to make money off that info, violating her contract with colby?

and yes the whole system sucks that that is how they raise money in politics today because our politicians won't let us have public financing of campaigns.

Comment by Cleve

Cleve — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:36:27 -0800

On that Sound Transit bill:

The Sound Transit press spokesperson said today there's "nothing" to suggest the proposed legislation would endanger the $750 million federal grant.

Seattle P-I, Jan. 23, 2008, page B3.

Comment by whatever

whatever — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:52:12 -0800

If Sound Transit morphs into a roads and transit agency, the feds will throw up their hands�and that money is gone.

Josh the bull of this has been pointed out to you since you first posted it. This makes you sound as lame as W.

The problem with the money is that it might not be enough and the Feds could call them on inadequate financing. Nothing to do with who is on the board. Or maybe you think that Conlin being nominated might also cause the money to be lost.

Called Patty on this?

Comment by Clint

Clint — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:56:03 -0800

That Mark Hays thing scares the crap out of me because I know that cops will pretty much do whatever they want and just clean up the paperwork later.

I once had a cop completely lose it and escalate a jay-walking situation. It didn't get physical, but it easily could have. I think the only thing that saved me was that I answered my cell phone. I learned then and there that when a cop is freaking, call anyone, even your voicemail. It has a real soothing effect on the officer when he thinks that there might be a recording of the incident. It has worked a few times since.

Comment by yawn

yawn — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:38:00 -0800

ECB - must be another slow news day for you...ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Comment by Huh?

Huh? — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:37:17 -0800

@7 - It sounds, from the article, that Underwood's old employee agrees that use of any kind of confidential value-added database is not allowed. He's not claiming that she did that - he's saying that she isn't allowed to be in the same business as him. His lawsuit sounds like plain old intimidation of the competition to me.

Comment by vesuvius

vesuvius — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:16:14 -0800

@12:
The story you cite to back your statements actually says the opposite of what you say it says.

You say "he's saying that she isn't allowed to be in the same business as him" but the ECB story says specifically he is not asking for an order that she not be in business.

It says he doesn't want her using his client list, trade secrets, or donor lists. You say "it sounds like" she agrees but there's nothing in the story saying that nor is her attorney quoted as agreeing to that.

Comment by Huh?

Huh? — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:41:45 -0800

You only read half the article, #13. She agrees to follow the confidentiality agreement ("She's not going to violate the terms of that agreement."). But what Underwood finds objectionable is that she "attempted to set up her own fundraising shop." And for him, that seems to be the sin.

If Underwood thinks she's actually stolen the kind of stuff you are describing, then he should say so, plainly and without hints or innuendo, and then be able to prove it. But so far, it looks like bluster to me.

Comment by what the?

what the? — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:24:32 -0800

What I "assume" is that Vesuvius must be Colby. Lame. You don't need his "cross tabbed relational hot as shit database" to be an effective fund raiser. You need to give good customer service and do the work you're hired to do. Leave the girl alone.

Comment by Willis

Willis — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:13:32 -0800

Sounds like Underwood is just trying to institute a monopoly on the fundraising market by litigating his competition out of existence - if he's any good at what he does, then he shouldn't be scared of a little competition.

Guess we now know what Underwood thinks of his own ability...

Comment by Corliss

Corliss — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:32:41 -0800

Fact of the matter is, the injunction was won in court, so all of this armchair discussion about what is really going on here means nothing. A court of law agreed with Underwood. Leave it up to the experts.

Comment by Sidebar

Sidebar — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:36:16 -0800

You guys all sound like insiders. It's pretty clear that one side of this arguement got all their friends to post comments in their favor. This won't be fought out in the press by unsophisticated, underdog loving Stranger readers. And if fundraising was so simple and mindless, then why aren't there 50 of them running around Seattle, all as successful as Underwood? That's because they haven't put in the work it takes to create a successful business at it. Which is why it's worth protecting, even if by a lawsuit.

Comment by Another Insider's Input

Another Insider's Input — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:28:09 -0800

Monopoly? What about the work of Tracy Newman, Laura Ruderman, Linda Mitchell, Barbara Chadwick, and Carol Albert? Are they chopped liver? These are rude, overstated and uninformed assumptions that Underwood is the only game in town that does any fundraising of consequence.

Comment by unsophisticated

unsophisticated — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:51:48 -0800

I don't think that Colby IS successful. His clients and employees are leaving...as Another points out (and ECB didn't), there ARE other fundraisers in town who are successful, they just do it differently.

Comment by Hmmm?

Hmmm? — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:10:46 -0800

@ 20: "I don't think that Colby IS successful."

I don't think you THINK at all. Get your facts straight.

Comment by Sidebar

Sidebar — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:21:42 -0800

@ 20...how do you figure? ECB states herself that Underwood is in high demand and is quite successful for a number of candidates. Businesses have internal issues. Employees get disgruntled. Clients come and go.

You are clearly a former employee who is passing off your own bias opinions as fact.

The smear campaign is a little tired and childish, dontcha think?

Comment by TP

TP — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:39:16 -0800

And as I have heard, employees did not leave, he fired them for insubordination