This blog contains the email exchange between O'Connell and myself. I was counseled to give a firm response to his outrageously revealing and angry email to me.
Let's, however, know that this man probably recommended an expansion of the unfit foster mother's complaint against me and this blog, and then hired an investigator without telling me he was moving forward. He said he would inform me of developments. (Let's go hunt while she continues to write!)He also said he would call to set up an interview which he never did. No one has.
I would not be printing this email exchange but for two reasons. First, someone out there decided to write me saying what a nice guy Mike O'Connell is. Fine. This is not about nice. But let the email speak for itself. Secondly, I think witch hunts should be public.
Remember the story line. The foster mother in the Stuth case filed an ethics complaint against me demanding that this blog (this bit of free speech) should be shut down. Remember that I never used the names in the case. Remember that she is the one with the restraining order out against the former lover with a gun and that she had the Stuth grandchild removed from her (for cause) at the very time the state continued to argue for termination and placement with this woman! Who and what should be investigated here????!!!! (And yes, the judge agreed with me.)
Mr. Mike O'Connell sent me a cover letter with the complaint. I called him. He used to be the Senate Republican counsel many years ago and I have regarded him as at least not an enemy. I have not had much occasion to communicate with him over the last 10 years. He is employed at the will of the Democrat Senate.
I told him I thought this complaint was ridiculous. That I had the constitutional right to have a blog just like anyone else. And, that though I could if I had chosen to do so...I used no names. And, I stated that I have free speech rights. And, that as a Senator I have the right and responsibility to demand that state government follow the law by placing children with qualified relatives. The foster woman's name had even been used in open court. His letter of notification clearly released her information and he said the complaint could be public (including her name). He told me that he didn't see anything wrong, but that he would let me know if it was otherwise.
He did not. He never notified me that the purvue of the complaint had been expanded. Why? Because the longer she blogs the greater the chance of finding something we can pin on her!
I called him before Christmas telling him I wanted to know what was happening. As if as a casual aside, O'Connell informed me that the Ethics Board was going to "expand the nature of the foster woman's complaint" and go interviewing looking for something (anything) I might have done wrong. I had to call him to be informed of this new and unusual development.
Really? Not enough to do?
As you know, I am just finishing up, Twilight, a book for teens and now a popular movie that I am reading along with my granddaughter. We learn there that the werewolves do not like light! They prefer the darkness.
PLEASE READ THIS EMAIL EXCHANGE FROM THE BOTTOM UP.
-----Original Message-----From: O'Connell, Mike Wed, 28 Jan 2009 7:23 am Subject: RE: CPS Wrongdoings
You have my sincere apology if my response seems angry and irrational because surely you know me better than that. I am neither. And, it seems, I was mistaken about your intentions regarding a meeting with Ken Wilson. I simply wanted to convey to you that you have an opportunity, if you choose, to be part of the preliminary investigation.
No message to the Board has been sent on this matter. Of course you may have an attorney or anyone else you may select to be present at the interview.
Would you prefer to give me some dates and times when you would be available or should I start with his schedule and provide some options for you to consider? Whichever you prefer.
From: pamroach@ Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:52 PMTo: O'Connell, Mike Subject: Re: Wrongdoings at CPS
Please indicate in my letter where I refused to be interviewed. Please indicate where I refused to participate. Please indicate when or what time I have refused an interview from Mr. Wilson. When has a request ever been put forward to me for an interview?
You have indicated to me that you have hired an investigator. That takes money. Taxpayer money. We are in a recession. The state is facing a multi-billion dollar deficit. I have offered you an opportunity to read the King County Superior Court judge's ruling in this matter. The judge is not a party. However, he has rendered that ruling. That ruling supports my good work in this matter and clearly states the illegal actions and harm perpetrated on my constituents by DSHS.
Your response to my initial letter seems to be angry and irrational. I would ask that you reflect upon your words and your tone. I demand that you not relay erroneous or inaccurate information to the board. If you persist on the position you have stated in this letter I will have to seek legal assistance to defend my rights. I look forward to a more rational and well thought response from you in the future. Pam Roach
From: O'Connell, Mike To: Roach, Pam Sent: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 5:23 pm Subject: RE: Wrongdoings at CPS
As you identified in one of our phone messages, one of the issues raised in the complaint is breach of confidentiality. This allegation involves your relationship with DSHS personnel and perhaps others. The other allegation, which we also discussed, was whether you wrongfully used you position or public resources – this could also involve your relationship with DSHS personnel and perhaps others. As you say, there may be nothing here in the end and I appreciate that it can be frustrating to be the subject of a complaint but a “witch hunt” seems a curious descriptor of a process established in law. Before a case may be dismissed the matter must be investigated. If this were not the fact then all that quasi-judicial boards would have to do would be to gather a statement from the respondent and dismiss the case or, in the alternative, gather a statement from the complainant and proceed to a hearing. Granted, a much simpler process.
Earlier you seemed eager to be interviewed – in fact, you insisted upon it and made me promise it would happen. You complained that in the past and on more than one occasion you have been refused the opportunity to tell your story. An interview would have given you an opportunity to help Mr. Wilson put his report together, with everyone’s perspectives included, before being considered by the Board. You have chosen not to participate and since there are no compulsory orders in effect at this time it is certainly your right to refuse.
I will inform Mr. Wilson and the Board that you have declined . As I mentioned earlier the Board meets on February 19 and the progress of the investigation will be a subject for a non-public, executive session. At some point the Board will determine it has enough information from the investigation to answer the question of whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe the Act has been violated. The Board will issue a public order on the question of reasonable cause, either dismis sing the case for lack of reasonable cause or finding reasonable cause and ordering a public hearing.