Skagit County residents would save millions in electricity rates if the Skagit Public Utility District acquires and operates Puget Sound Energy’s power system here, according to a consultant’s report released today.

Read the Full Story

Not a surprise that the Hittle hit piece on PSE would say PUD takeowevr makes sense.  After all, Hittle is a member of several public power associations—no bias there. 

The move by the PUD is all about empire building.  At the end of the day, Skagit County citizens will probably pay through the nose, even in the most likely event that the effort fails.

I suppose the Attorney General’s Office, which has recommended against the sale of PSE to globalist investors, is also biased in favor of the PUD. Oh, that’s right… PSE calls it a “merger.”

Again, Walker, you are free to attend a PUD Commissioners’ meeting some Tuesday afternoon and voice your concerns.

Don:

It is the “public counsel” of the Attorney General’s office, whose job is specifically to take a strong position on behalf of consumers, that has come out against the PSE merger, not AG Rob McKenna nor the entirety of his office.  Said public counsel, Simon ffitch (yes, he spells his last name with two “f’s” and no capital letter—no commentary needed) is known to oppose anything and everything at any time.

Thanks for the invite to attend a PUD Commission meeting, I just may take you up on that.  But have you botthered to read the Hittle study—it has so many ill-conceived assumptions, caveats and “this needs more of an in-depth look” than you can shake a stick at, all for $30,000 of taxpayer dollars.  What a joke.  Just like Mr. Knee-jerk Simon ffffffitch, these guys have never seen a public power ploy they don’t think is a great idea, especially because they don’t have to be around to actually pay the price, they just make money off whoever floats the idea.

Right now the PUD is using public tax dollars to push this issue in their favor, rather than taking an objective look, and every taxpayer in Skagit County should be outraged.  But again, for the PUD it’s all about building an empire.  And they really don’t care what the public thinks, or they would have gone ahead with fluoridation by now.  Your “public servants” at work…

Walker, the PUD knows its responsibility to the ratepayers as a whole. I don’t think that you understand the difference between public health and corporate giving programs. Perhaps you need to study a speech made by the former CEO of the Washington Dental Service Foundation in November 2005. Tracy Garland’s, Adventures in Public Policy Grantmaking details what goes on behind closed doors in a bid “to unleash a powerful political force.”

In case you didn’t notice, Resolution #20070284 is based on the laughable “whereas” that tooth decay can be passed from person to person through casual contact. If dental caries is an “infectious and contagious” disease, why has there never been a single quarantine put in effect to stop its spread? If issues concerned the plague, a tuberculosis outbreak, or a flu pandemic, that would be the first step in bringing it under control. Even a vaccination program would have to be monitored by qualified medical personnel. No such oversight exists where the legend drug fluoride is concerned. Where is the prescription for the fluoride that has been injected into the drinking water of Anacortes? No pharmacy will hand out the substance without a doctor’s written request. As such, this abuse of the board of health’s “police power” violates the legislative intent behind RCW 70.05.060 and it should be investigated.

The fluoridation mandate is a fraud, voted on by two county commissioners who failed to qualify for their offices when they missed the filing deadlines for their Oaths of Office in January 2005. This is not idle speculation. The documentation is available to anyone who knows how to read and is willing to do the research.

RCW 36.16.060 states that a county commissioner’s Oath of Office must be filed with the county auditor before his or her first order of business in his or her new term. Both Don Munks and Ken Dahlstedt were present for the County Commissioners’ Meeting on January 3, 2005. The Oaths of Office for Munks and Dahlstedt were filed a week later on January 10, 2005.

According to RCW 42.12.010 paragraph six, neglect to take or deposit the Oath of Office within the time prescribed by law creates a vacancy in the elective office. There is no grace period or remedy. An Attorney General’s Opinion from 1963 verifies that “Our supreme court has held that the occurrence of an event designated in RCW 42.12.010 occasions immediate forfeiture of office and creates a vacancy.”

A full report has been reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office and is now in the hands of the Governor’s Office.

No Oath >> No Office >> No Mandate

edit: corrected typo