Greg Brotherton’s Lack of Judgment and Maturity

Greg Brotherton’s Lack of Judgment and Maturity

by | Oct 3, 2018 | Politics

It’s impossible to know what goes on in the mind of Elon Musk. The man who leads Tesla and the privately-held SpaceX Corporation is a genius and a visionary. But his judgment and maturity are now being called into question. Musk generated wide ranging problems for himself, his companies and his investors after smoking cannabis during a live interview on the Joe Rogan podcast September 6. 

Video of Musk smoking marijuana went viral and within hours, Tesla’s stock price dropped precipitously, the company’s chief accounting officer resigned, and the U.S. Air Force began scrutinizing Musk’s conduct. His high-profile pot smoking fueled questions about his “erratic,” behavior. Jefferies Group stock analyst Philippe Houchois was quoted by the Seattle Times describing Musk as a man who, “seems to be on a slightly self-destructive bent.” James Albertine, another stock analyst, drafted a research report expressing alarm because, “The ongoing, effectively self-inflicted public relations crisis is now affecting key personnel within the organization.”

Some social commentators have defended Musk’s public cannabis use because after all, lots of us have used marijuana in the past. Others see it as the ultimate hypocrisy after a former Tesla employee who used medical marijuana lost her job for failing a drug test while the CEO gets a pass to smoke pot in a live interview. 

The primary concern over Musk’s public cannabis display is less about culture and more about simple good judgment. When we place people in leadership positions, we expect a level of maturity commensurate to that position. For those who disagree with this premise, I suggest reviewing President Trump’s Twitter feed. 

We want serious people in executive positions and for good reason; the fitness, judgment and maturity of such people has a tremendous impact on the lives of thousands, even millions, of individuals. In Musk’s case, investors, customers and consumers have a lot at stake in Tesla and SpaceX, and they have every right to expect him to behave like a grown up. The question for us in Jefferson County is whether we have similar expectations for the people who govern us. Greg Brotherton’s campaign for the Board of County Commissioners has been dogged by concerns related to a video of him smoking from a bong. He produced and released this video while serving on the Quilcene School Board. It is part of a series of online features promoting his cannabis store, which has suffered sharply declining sales since peaking more than three years ago. (The photo at the top, if you didn’t already know, is Brotherton in his bong-smoking scene).

Like Musk, there are multiple concerns about Brotherton’s fitness for the position he seeks. Some people question the propriety of a cannabis retailer on the BoCC when the rate of illegal marijuana use by high school sophomores in Jefferson County is 76% higher than the state average. Other concerns revolve around how a commissioner who owns a cannabis store can conscientiously fulfill their role of fighting drug use in the county. Both concerns are entirely valid. 

But unlike Musk, who was taken unawares in a spontaneous moment during a live interview with a comedian, Brotherton was a willing participant and driving force behind his bong smoking video. Musk’s indiscretion may be chalked up to a momentary lapse of judgment; Brotherton’s was premeditated to the point of being scripted.

Illegal marijuana transaction in Brotherton movie

Regardless of one’s opinion on the safety of marijuana, the more vexing question for all of us is whether we expect our elected representatives to rise above such foolishness. This is not about the use of cannabis. It’s about fitness and it’s fair to ask whether any person who, as an adult, films themselves doing bong hits has the maturity and good judgment to be one of just three individuals seated on the highest governing body of the county.

Greg Brotherton fancies himself a filmmaker and I’m sure it was a lot of fun producing videos of himself and others reenacting what it was like getting stoned during the days of marijuana prohibition in Washington state. But this isn’t a stunt by a college boy engaged in some fanciful caper. These are the antics of a grown man, a father and a husband. Do we really want to elect a person whose poor judgment and immaturity are a slap in the face of every parent coping with a teenager fighting a drug problem? If we’re prepared to do that, we should also be prepared for Jefferson County to become a national laughingstock. 

To view Greg Brotherton’s stoner movie, part 1, click here.

 

Gun Control Emerges as Issue in Jeffco Commissioner Race

Gun Control Emerges as Issue in Jeffco Commissioner Race

by | Sep 25, 2018 | Politics

Initiative 1639 is not the only threat to your Second Amendment rights on the November 6 ballot. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners is joining the effort to keep you from exercising your constitutional rights.  The voters’ decision on who should fill the open District 3 seat on the Commission now looms large in the future of gun rights in Jefferson County.

I-1639 is the initiative that would invade your medical privacy if you buy a handgun or semi-automatic rifle; collect enough data to populate a federally-prohibited registry of gun owners; and subject lawful gun owners to prosecution if their gun is stolen and used in a crime, among other affronts to your liberties. 

 What Jefferson county commissioners are doing is more subtle and reflects an emerging tactic among anti-Second Amendment government bodies. Politicians in most jurisdictions know that being honest about wanting to take away people’s guns and their right to use them is a recipe for political disaster. To work around this inconvenient truth, liberal politicians manipulate the regulatory process by writing laws designed to chip away at your gun rights. 

 The mechanism for this is a new ordinance to re-write existing county laws pertaining to shooting ranges. Judging by the language of the ordinance, it would appear the new and onerous regulations contained in this 38-page dictum are designed for one thing: to make it too expensive and too burdensome to operate a shooting range in Jefferson County. 

 This ordinance creates new, complex and costly barriers to exercising rights under the Second Amendment. Commissioner David Sullivan claims the ordinance is, “based on health and safety issues that have been cited at gun facilities,” the largest and best known being the range operated by the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association. 

 But a careful read of the ordinance betrays the motives of Sullivan and others. Modeled after a similar piece of anti-gun legislation in Kitsap County, the draft language for Jefferson County explicitly states that, “Kitsap County has passed a commercial shooting facility ordinance that withstood legal challenge.” In other words, they think they found a way to limit your gun rights and get away with it. 

 The ordinance also attempts to indict the Sportsmen Association and the range it has operated for more than half a century. It reads, “bullets striking a residence on November 22, 2017 near the commercial shooting facility located at 112 Gun Club Rd., Port Townsend, WA 98368 on land owned by Jefferson County but operated by Jefferson County Sportsmen’s Association called to question the safety of commercial shooting facilities.” 

 The deceit is revealed by the ordinance eventually acknowledging the truth that, “it was ultimately determined the damage was likely not caused by the shooting facility operated by Jefferson County Sportsmen’s Association.” The entire ordinance is based on a false premise. 

 The Sportsmen Association is not run by One-Percenters who fund anti-gun agitators from their offices in New York. It’s about 1,100 individuals and families who pay annual dues that are lower than my monthly PUD bill. By all accounts, this group of private citizens has been a good neighbor over the past 52 years, and operates its facility in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. But the new bureaucracy, permitting demands, inspections and surveying requirements of the ordinance aren’t cheap. We’re talking about tens of thousands of dollars that groups like the Sportsmen Association simply do not have. 

 Meanwhile, a lot of complaints are from people who moved near the range after it opened in the early 1960s and now gripe about hearing guns. It’s like wanting to shut down the Port Townsend mill because you bought a house near it and it smells funny when the wind blows the wrong way. 

 This is how liberal government works. They create new law that could put a shooting range out of business. This means law abiding gun owners of Jefferson County are denied the best and biggest facility of its kind on the peninsula. Combine this loss of a long-established range with the raft of “no shooting” zones ordered by the ordinance, and people are left with virtually no nearby place to legally practice and improve their gun safety skills. Your ability to lawfully exercise your constitutional rights is diminished. 

The current board wants an incremental stealth form of gun control. What will the future 2019 Board of Commissioners do? The November 6 election to fill Kathleen Kler’s open seat will determine whether Jefferson County is governed by commissioners who are unanimously opposed to your constitutional rights. Democrat Greg Brotherton has already indicated he doesn’t want to be a disruptor on the board, so he cannot be counted upon to support your Second Amendment rights. He also just happens to be the candidate recruited by the other commissioners. Republican Jon Cooke is more independent and open-minded on the issue.

So the question is, who do you trust to defend your right to keep and bear arms?  Put another way, who do you trust not to use their powers as county commissioner to undermine your Second Amendment rights?

This new law isn’t a done deal yet. A public hearing on the ordinance is set for October 1 and it’s a good bet that plenty of anti-Second Amendment agitators will be bused-in to the courthouse for the 6:30 pm hearing. For people who believe the Bill of Rights actually means something in Jefferson County, this is probably their last best chance to speak up.

 

Fake Democracy in Jefferson County

Fake Democracy in Jefferson County

by | Sep 6, 2018 | Politics

 I had a brief and cordial correspondence recently with Port Townsend City Councilman David Faber about the way commissioners are elected in Jefferson County. With the race for District 3 County Commissioner perched atop the local ballot, I asked him how he felt about a system in which people who do not reside in District 3 can determine who will represent the people who live there. 

 Mr. Faber replied (I’m paraphrasing here) that he was basically okay with that because the county commission represents all residents of the county. That’s his opinion and I absolutely defend his right to it, but the logic struck me as quizzical. It’s analogous to allowing the people of Jefferson County to elect a member of Congress in the 14th Congressional District of Ohio or to decide the US Senate race in Montana because, as the logic goes, Congress represents all residents of the United States. 

 The fact people from Port Townsend or anywhere else not in District 3 having the power to vote for a commissioner to represent the people of Brinnon, Quilcene, Port Ludlow and other far flung corners of District 3, amounts to disenfranchisement of the people who live in District 3.  

 Primary elections for county commissioner are decided by voters who actually live in a particular district, but the winner in November is determined in what boils down to an at-large election. It’s farcical for District 3 citizens to determine the primary, only to have their decision potentially overturned in the general election by voters who do not live in the district. 

 This is fake democracy. If you’re happy with the status quo, stop reading now. But if you believe the current system for electing commissioners is flawed, it’s time to start thinking about how to bring representative democracy to Jefferson County.

 It’s difficult to fathom the idea that citizens of 21st century America must labor to establish for themselves something called Home Rule. Requests for Home Rule are a relic of the colonial era, when peoples scattered across the continents, hardly any of whom were white, had to petition an emperor in London or Paris for the right of self-determination. Yet we in Jefferson County find ourselves in the position of drafting entreaties for the right to determine who will represent us within a governing body. 

 It begins with a petition for a Home Rule Charter, and the collection and submission of signatures of people who live in Jefferson County. Gathering the requisite number of signatures qualifies the issue to appear on the general election ballot. Voters are then asked whether they wish to proceed and elect a slate of fellow residents to deliberate and prepare a Home Rule Charter for the county. 

 If it sounds complicated, that’s because it is. It was tried in 2013 and the effort went down in flames with 70% of voters opposing the idea. It lost in every precinct in the county save Precinct 600, where 24 voters in Hoh supported Home Rule while 20 opposed it. 

 Would Jefferson County voters want to reconsider the issue? The process is onerous, labor intensive, time consuming and costly. It demands asking our neighbors to support liberty and restore the fundamental precepts of representative democracy. 

 No doubt the complexity of the matter turns off many voters. Even if a Home Rule Petition were approved, it would take years before we could properly enfranchise all the people of the county. Laden with so many steps over so long a period of time, the process of establishing Home Rule can easily cloud the larger idea: the idea of individual liberty, of the opportunity for people to determine their own destiny through the act of allowing people to vote for their own representative on the county commission. 

It’s easy to dismiss these arguments as overly dramatic but they are real and fundamental to the character of America.

 For whatever reason, Jefferson County voted five years ago to deny themselves the right to determine their own local representatives on the county commission. Has the time come to change how we elect our commissioners? The 2020 election cycle is not far away. It’s not easy, but nothing worth doing is ever is.  

 

 

Reefer Madne$$

Reefer Madne$$

by | Aug 29, 2018 | General, Local Businesses

Reefer Madness is gripping America. I’m not talking about the 1936 cult movie classic that so many of us rolled our eyes at as teenagers. I’m talking about the billions of dollars that are flowing into U.S. and Canadian stock markets to buy shares of companies that sell legal marijuana and other cannabis derivatives. 

With news that Canada will be the first nation in the industrialized world to legalize recreational marijuana beginning October 17, there’s been a lot of attention paid to Canadian firms poised to enter this multi-billion–dollar market. Lately, this attention has been laser focused 

Stocks in cannabis companies have soared in recent weeks, sparked in large part by the August 15 announcement that one of the largest beverage companies on earth – Constellation Brands – was investing $4 billion USD in the Canadian cannabis company Canopy Growth Corporation. Since then, Canopy’s stock has risen more than 75%, making it the world’s largest legal marijuana company based on market capitalization. 

Other marijuana stocks are also riding high, with investor speculation of similar deals and growth potential involving other cannabis companies. Tilray, Inc. debuted on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange in mid-July with an initial pubic offering price of $17 a share. As of August 28, it was trading at nearly $60 a share. Another company called Aurora Cannabis has also seen significant gains in recent weeks, as have other companies. These are gains that dwarf the returns of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, NASDAQ and other global indices. 

Much of this explosive growth is being fueled by institutional investors who see big profits to be made in cannabis. Wall Street suits are now buying tens of millions of shares in these companies. Marijuana has gone mainstream in the centers of finance. 

Some investors liken the opportunity to buying stock in Anheuser-Busch in the months before the 21st Amendment was ratified in 1933, ending the nightmare of the noble but doomed experiment of Prohibition. As with any other emerging trend, there’s no shortage of hyperbole and hype. Some financial writers have called Canopy the “Google of Pot,” while other headlines have referred to various cannabis companies the “Amazon of marijuana,” providing no shortage of click-bait for those who read financial news online. 

Set aside for a moment the issue of whether one holds a moral position regarding the legal use of marijuana, recreationally or medically. This industry sector is now a part of the macro-economy here, in Canada and around the globe. It is a very small part of the economy but nonetheless contributes to it. Over time, it’s contribution to the broader economy will only grow. 

Whether the industry is petroleum, consumer goods, restaurants or anything else, cannabis can only successfully contribute to the economy through adherence to applicable laws and regulations. Failure to abide by these legal strictures not only risks individual businesses but entire sectors. Decisions to not abide to the rule of law casts a shadow over individual corporations and, potentially entire business sectors. 

This is particularly true when it comes to new and emerging businesses like cannabis, which is already having a significant impact in Washington state. Washington state collected some $319 million in taxes and fees associated with legal cannabis in 2017 on sales of $1.3 billion. That’s not nothing and the only way to continue to grow this nascent industry is to make sure that every participant runs a buttoned-down operation. 

The only way to ensure that this new industry, like it or not, continues contributing to our economy, is to make sure that bad actors do not circumvent the law. Doing so harms growth, stifles job creation and creates a drag on an industry that is otherwise adding to our economy and tax base. Diligent adherence to law and robust enforcement are absolutely vital to ensure public trust and the future viability of the industry in Washington state and elsewhere. 

As a small-government guy, I’m no fan of bureaucratic overreach on regulatory matters. But we do need some degree of oversight to ensure consumer protection and responsible corporate citizenship. It’s critical in all industries and especially so for new industries like cannabis.

 

Answering Criticism About Brinnon Group Column

Answering Criticism About Brinnon Group Column

by | Aug 22, 2018 | General

One of my favorite responsibilities as a news executive was to serve as an ombudsman. When readers express complaints about a news organization’s coverage of an issue, it is the ombudsman’s role to publicly and constructively respond to these complaints, and explain how news and commentary are prepared.

The Port Townsend Free Press commentary of July 31, entitled ‘Now Showing – Desperation Over Pleasant Harbor,’ generated a good deal of response on Facebook and elsewhere. While much of the response to that commentary was positive, the criticism merits discussion.

Jeff Maloney, writing on the Brinnon Community Page on Facebook, expressed a concern echoed by other readers. “It strikes me as confrontational, an attack on this Brinnon group, a lot of it irrelevant, petty, like how much money the group has, an error in the address, it was about the group, not about the issue (sic).”

The column raised questions about the Brinnon Group and its finances, a practice well ensconced in journalism. When a party inserts itself into a debate, it is in the public interest to scrutinize that party. One role of journalism is to explore and explain the motivations of parties engaging on an issue. The public knows what the Brinnon Group says but does not know how its efforts are funded nor who is providing this funding. These are valid questions.

As for the location of the Brinnon Group, the group says it is working for the people of Brinnon yet there is evidence that it isn’t located in Brinnon or even Jefferson County. If the people who say they are working on behalf of local interests are located nearly 100 miles away, as the Brinnon Group’s Kitsap Superior Court filing and IRS correspondence reveal, it is reasonable to ask whether it is really a local grassroots organization.

Sara Harvey, also writing on the Brinnon Community Facebook page, lamented, “metaphoric slanders against a group of people who are trying to prevent a massive shift to the rural village that is Brinnon.”

Slander is a legal term that applies to spoken falsehoods that damage another party. Falsely accusing a party of wrongdoing or some other malfeasance may rise to the level of slander but presenting facts, posing questions and expressing opinions do not. People are not entitled to their own facts. Factual inaccuracy was not among the complaints about the column.

The Brinnon Group is trying to prevent the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. But there is nothing to suggest the group speaks for all or even most of the people in Brinnon. The recent primary election results in the race for District 3 county commissioner indicate otherwise.

Of the 551 votes cast for all four county commissioner candidates in the Brinnon Precinct, 32% were cast for a candidate who opposes the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The remaining 68% were for candidates who publicly expressed support for the project. While the Brinnon Group may speak for a third of the people of Brinnon, their position appears to represent a small minority, further legitimizing questions about it. When a party takes action on an issue that contradicts the wishes of two-thirds of the people of Brinnon, it is reasonable to ask why.

The greatest number of complaints involved the tone of the commentary. Brinnon Group spokesperson Mark Rose described the column as, “a hit piece,” “nasty,” expressive of “anger,” and he articulated dismay that the commentary did not delve into, “the merits of our appeal,” to block the MPR. Other readers voiced similar complaints.

The column expressed no opinion on the merits of the appeal because that is the role of the courts. The column expressed no opinion on the Pleasant Harbor MPR, but did disclose the group’s prior statements on the issue, which is appropriate.

As for the tone of the commentary, that is a license granted to all opinion writers. The term “conga line of buffoons,” is an admittedly less than cordial means of describing the Brinnon Group and purely subjective. Mr. Rose admitted during an on-the-record interview that he falsely accused two public officials of suppressing information and said earlier that his group was unable to inform a “shocking,” number of Brinnon residents about the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Whether these actions and inactions rise to the level of buffoonery is open to debate. Reasonable people can conclude they are inconsistent with organizations wishing to do good.

The feedback was instructive and the opportunity to respond to critics is appreciated. It is our responsibility and we are wiser for that opportunity.

Scott Hogenson is a resident of Jefferson County.