Is Jay Kehne Using his position to funnel Info to Conservation NW?

[KFhunter]

I think you're pretty naive if you think everything is done in the open when the operating principles are made a complete farce.

The stuff I'm talking about isn't going to show up on any information requests.

[pianoman9701]

A commissioner discussing or sharing public information with any organization, even one he works for, is not an ethics violation.  If mr. jay shared some executive business related to hiring say a new wdfw director with CNW...that would be a violation.  Discussing public information about poaching...not so much.

I get people don't like this commissioner...but lets not confuse legitimate disagreements over issues with ridiculous allegations of ethics violations when no such evidence exists.

I've made no allegations, ridiculous or otherwise. I've simply put the question out there. And yes, I'm unhappy he was confirmed to the commission. Everyone including he is aware of that. And, the requirements posted above by KF clearly show that he should've been disqualified for the position, given his position in an environmental organization which has a clear pro-wolf agenda (I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.).

[Knocker of rocks]

Everyone including he is aware of that. And, the requirements posted above by KF clearly show that he should've been disqualified for the position, given his position ..........................(I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.).

Would you boot this guy too?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/bios/kehoe.html

[pianoman9701]

Not unless someone could show he had an agenda coming in. I would say his expertise would probably be a big benefit in formulating and/or analyzing commercial fishing rules and seasons. Why, do you know something I don't know?

[Knocker of rocks]

No, but I would say that as a commercial fisherman he would likely have an angenda

[KFhunter]

A commissioner discussing or sharing public information with any organization, even one he works for, is not an ethics violation.  If mr. jay shared some executive business related to hiring say a new wdfw director with CNW...that would be a violation.  Discussing public information about poaching...not so much.

I get people don't like this commissioner...but lets not confuse legitimate disagreements over issues with ridiculous allegations of ethics violations when no such evidence exists.

I've made no allegations, ridiculous or otherwise. I've simply put the question out there. And yes, I'm unhappy he was confirmed to the commission. Everyone including he is aware of that. And, the requirements posted above by KF clearly show that he should've been disqualified for the position, given his position in an environmental organization which has a clear pro-wolf agenda (I. Represent all citizens of the state (who own the resource), not constituents from a particular area or special interest.).

I haven't made any allegations regarding violations of ethics,  only presented a possible scenario,  so let's be clear on that. 


He is violating the operating principles of the commission that is clear.

What that means I don't know,  but I don't think it carries the weight of law behind it.





 

[Northway]

Let's say hypothetically only that someone is working within our state government in a paid position. That person also works for a non-profit in their spare time. The state department they're working for is planning on launching a new program. However, the new program is against the ideals and thrust of the non-profit. The person in question gives privileged information, info not yet released to the public, to his non-profit. His non-profit then gets others involved. When the department goes to launch the program, the opposition has everything in place to block their efforts and the launch is a failure. Any state employee taking advantage of their position to the gain of a private organization has some problems to address.

I think the risk for that is relatively low. The reason for that is because I believe it would be hard for that scenario to occur without other commissioners figuring it out. You would have to the whole commission and maybe others complicit in not whistleblowing in that scenario. How hard would it be for others to see that you've leaked info to someone with an association or strong sympathies with CNW who then goes and lobbies to get an initiative killed? A change in policy doesn't come from nowhere, and if government employees are anything like corporate employees, rumors fly.

[pianoman9701]

Let's say hypothetically only that someone is working within our state government in a paid position. That person also works for a non-profit in their spare time. The state department they're working for is planning on launching a new program. However, the new program is against the ideals and thrust of the non-profit. The person in question gives privileged information, info not yet released to the public, to his non-profit. His non-profit then gets others involved. When the department goes to launch the program, the opposition has everything in place to block their efforts and the launch is a failure. Any state employee taking advantage of their position to the gain of a private organization has some problems to address.

I think the risk for that is relatively low. The reason for that is because I believe it would be hard for that scenario to occur without other commissioners figuring it out. You would have to the whole commission and maybe others complicit in not whistleblowing in that scenario. How hard would it be for others to see that you've leaked info to someone with an association or strong sympathies with CNW who then goes and lobbies to get an initiative killed? A change in policy doesn't come from nowhere, and if government employees are anything like corporate employees, rumors fly.

You're probably correct that the risk is low. But, to do with your whistle blowers comment, I'm not sure how much access the other commissioners have to each other's email and other communications. I'm sure if someone were to do something unethical, they're not going to run to the other commission members to tell them.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Let's say hypothetically only that someone is working within our state government in a paid position. That person also works for a non-profit in their spare time. The state department they're working for is planning on launching a new program. However, the new program is against the ideals and thrust of the non-profit. The person in question gives privileged information, info not yet released to the public, to his non-profit. His non-profit then gets others involved. When the department goes to launch the program, the opposition has everything in place to block their efforts and the launch is a failure. Any state employee taking advantage of their position to the gain of a private organization has some problems to address.

I think the risk for that is relatively low. The reason for that is because I believe it would be hard for that scenario to occur without other commissioners figuring it out. You would have to the whole commission and maybe others complicit in not whistleblowing in that scenario. How hard would it be for others to see that you've leaked info to someone with an association or strong sympathies with CNW who then goes and lobbies to get an initiative killed? A change in policy doesn't come from nowhere, and if government employees are anything like corporate employees, rumors fly.

You're probably correct that the risk is low. But, to do with your whistle blowers comment, I'm not sure how much access the other commissioners have to each other's email and other communications. I'm sure if someone were to do something unethical, they're not going to run to the other commission members to tell them.

That and just HOW honest have the huggers been proven to be??

[Knocker of rocks]

I'm wondering what this privileged information is?  Take the wolf shooting.  That was probably dispatched over the radio.  Not much of a secret there.

As far as e-mails, all e-mails by public employees are open to FOI requests.

[Special T]

Pman I think this is more of a symptom/indicator of the kind of commissioner we have now. I don't think there is any real thing that can be done other that get a Governor that is more sympathetic to hunters/sportmen issues.

Did he share the info? quite likely, is it illegal, possibly... Is there a way to prove it in a court of law or the court of opinion... Not likely.

As much as it makes me sick i think the only real way to boot some of these guys is to keep a record of their decisions and performance. ONE event  doesn't change much but several may

[pianoman9701]

I agree. That doesn't mean I'm going to let him skate.

[Knocker of rocks]

Did he share the info? quite likely, is it illegal, possibly...

I actually don't think they have access to confidential information, by definition

[AspenBud]

Did he share the info? quite likely, is it illegal, possibly...

I actually don't think they have access to confidential information, by definition

Looking at the news reports it sounds like the wolf's collar was among those being used to guide their range rider program and where the incident occurred was somewhere near a cooperating rancher's land, at least that's what they claimed on their website. I'm guessing they were in tight with the state on this one since they were/are funding the project.

If they really wanted to push the issue they could look for active cell phones and GPS units in the area at the time it happened. That data is available if the law sees it as enough of a problem. I doubt they do however.

[KFhunter]

one problem with that plan Aspen - no cell coverage there


total dead zone