- Last time we checked, this wasn't Elizabeth Campbell.
As you might expect, the Stranger Election Control Board was pretty interested in what this year's Monorail study campaign had to say about their "Seattle Citizen Petition No. 1" on this fall's ballot.
So we scheduled a time for the campaign to come in and talk to us. Two days before the meeting, campaign leader Elizabeth Campbell wrote to say they were "unable to attend." Bummed, we scheduled another time. We were eager to speak with Campbell (who the Seattle Times called "the driving force behind the petition"), but yesterday, at the second appointed time, the guy above showed up.
William Popp is his name. He was expecting Elizabeth Campbell to be there, too, and said he didn't know where she was. When the SECB pointed out that it's hard to trust someone with a huge transit project if she can't even show up for a (re)scheduled meeting, Popp said that was a good point.
So we sent Popp on his way, and a little while later Campbell called the SECB on the phone. She blamed the confusion on her scheduler, Libby Carr. "I can't do everything myself," Campbell said. "That's why I pay her the money." This was not a good indication that Campbell—whose measure would place her on a board in charge of $2 million a year in public funds—could be trusted to spend taxpayer money wisely, and when the SECB pointed this out, Campbell cast doubt on the SECB's motives. She also spoke of what she said was an unfavorable Stranger profile written long ago about Al Runte, a member of the current Monorail campaign.
(As the Seattle Times pointed out, this same campaign "was late submitting its voters-guide statement, so there will be a blank space on the guide under the heading 'statement for.'")
Campbell also said the SECB was "just one piece of the puzzle" and, when we noted she'd wasted our time, responded: "Your time is not more valuable than mine. You have the same 24 hours I do."
Later, Campbell e-mailed to apologize. "I am genuinely sorry that we had a mix-up on our side with scheduling, who was set to be in attendance this afternoon to speak with you," she wrote. "That is truly unfortunate and of course no one would want to inconvenience you. Sorry that the interview wasn't possible."
We are, too! But given that Campbell's measure, if successful, would place a lot of money and trust in her hands, the question now is: