Hello,

My name is Matthew Litwin. I was, until recently, a Planning Commissioner for the City of Olympia.  I was appointed in the Spring of 2007 and resigned a few weeks ago.

I’ve not previously been a contributor to OlyBlog, but several friends recently called to my attention that I was being discussed in a negative light on this website, and I wanted to directly address some of the accusations that have been made against me by member JLW and, to a lesser extent others. As far as I know, I’ve never met JLW and have never spoken with her one-on-one.

Before I submitted this posting, I attempted to reach her by phone to be able to better understand and perhaps address her concerns with me and my actions as a former planning commissioner. I was unable to reach her (no answer at the phone number that is publicly listed for her; I called three times) and have not been able to find a personal email address for her, either.  In the interests of addressing false accusations made in this public forum by Ms. Blanding in a timely manner, I have chosen to post a response for both her and the community at large to read.  If anyone has any questions for me, please feel free to post them here as a response, I will answer clearly and honestly to all fair questions.

I.                    The claim: I berated and browbeat Karen Messmer for “something that was well beyond her control” and I have “taken to task pleasant, law-abiding community members because vandals and pranksters in the community…take the same position on the rezone as they do.”

The facts: I sent Karen Messmer an email on Friday, December 12, 2008.  I sent it to her at her City of Olympia email address and thus it’s is a matter of public record.  The letter, which I have pasted below in its entirety, followed a very brief private conversation I had with her during the intermission of the preceding Council Meeting that was much briefer, but substantially similar in content. 

I heard nothing back from Council Member Messmer and after several days, I forwarded the email to her colleagues on the City Council and the City Manager.  That message, too, is public record and my introduction was brief and simply stated that “I think it's in the best interest of all concerned for my thoughts to be shared with the key decision makers in our city government so as to provide the maximum encouragement for our elected leaders to take unambiguously strong leadership in combating the tide of violence and intimidation that seems to be encroaching on Olympia.”

On the same day, I sent a private email to several leaders in the community who head up or otherwise are deeply involved in organizing against the proposed rezone and/or for a park initiative.  This email included a longer introduction to a copy of the letter to Council Member Messmer, and I have copied it below in its entirety, as well.  It isn’t in the public record, but I surmise that JLW has read it and I, again, want readers to draw their own conclusions after reading all of it, not just a sentence or two. 

My thoughts: I hope that visitors to this website spend the time to read my letter to Council Member Messmer as well as the introduction to the community leaders and draw their own conclusions.  For those who don’t want to go through both I’ll point out my sentence to Council Member Messmer that read, “Let me be clear, though, lest you come away with the impression that I believe you or other leaders in the anti-rezone movement directed the self-styled “anarchists” to destroy more property on Thursday night.  I don’t.”  In my letter to the community leaders I wrote “I don't think any of you or those who count themselves amongst your closest and publicly-active supporters have been directly responsible for the violence or intimidation in our community.  It strikes me that you're all savvy enough to know that it's probably counterproductive in the long run.  I don't think you directed the self-styled "anarchists" to do what they've done, either.” 

My letters communicate one central point that I continue to believe is right and fair: leaders who represent the viewpoints of those who oppose the rezone and/or want a park instead of a higher building have a responsibility to the community at large to take strong and aggressive steps to counter the damaging and sometimes illegal actions of those who agree with their point of view.  Very recently this week, there have been some good steps in this direction, and I’m grateful for that.  But there’s more yet that can and ought to be done and both of my letters offered additional suggestions that preceded this week’s positive developments.

II.                  The claim: I used my position on the Olympian’s Editorial Board to promote my positions on land-use issues and that “quite a few pro-rezone editorials appeared in the “O” (The Olympian) while I was there.  Further, I “proposed an editorial that other planning commissioners felt would be inappropriate” for me to be involved in.

The facts: I was appointed to the Olympian’s Editorial Board as one of two community representative on January 10, 2008 and served until June 15, 2008.  While I was on the Editorial Board, the Olympian’s editorial page editor penned the following pieces that touched on the Isthmus issue:

                                                               i.      “ Height-limit proposal is a test of council,” January 20, 2008

                                                             ii.      “Grassroots group touts downtown’s potential,” April 6, 2008

                                                            iii.      “End the blight, approve the height,” June 15, 2008

This is the way the Community Representative position works at the Olympian:  first, a meeting is held with members of the community, elected leaders, etc. who present an issue for the Editorial Board to consider.  Those in attendance at the Board usually include the paper’s publisher, the editor-in-chief, the editorial page editor and the two community reps.  Following the presentation and Q&A with the presenters, the Board meets by itself to discuss the position the paper will take on its editorial page.  It’s critical to understand that the community reps don’t write editorials or even set the editorial agenda (and we have no input on anything once our six month stint is finished).  We offer feedback to the editor of the editorial page by way of exchanging emails ahead of publication.  Sometimes the editor takes our suggestions, sometimes not.

                                                               i.      I participated in the discussion and made the statement in our meeting that height, itself, is not inherently bad (in general, not on the Isthmus or anyone else in particular) and contributed my point of view that the City Council ought to create a review process, facilitated by outside professionals, to foster a broad community dialogue to achieve the best possible result.  I was grateful that both of those sentiments were included by the editorial page editor.  I stand firmly by both of those points of view and do not view them in any way as being incompatible with my position on the Planning Commission.  I made it clear in the meeting that I had not come close to evaluating the extensive testimony and facts necessary to reach a conclusion about whether this particular comp plan amendment merited a recommendation.

                                                             ii.      I listened to the presentation by two leaders from the Oly2012, Jackie Barrett Sharar and Enid Layes, and participated in the discussion that followed.  Before the meeting began, I told the other members of the Olympian’s Editorial Board that, from October 2007 until February 2008, I had attended some of this group’s meetings.  During that period, Oly2012 was focused exclusively on providing broad-based community support for thoughtful downtown development with the aid of outside professionals (matching the comments I contributed to the first editorial mentioned above).  Leaders of a different downtown redevelopment group that ultimately came to argue strongly against the rezone were also involved in Oly2012 during that initial phase.

Around the end of February, Oly2012 decided to change their strategy by working to take pro/con stands on various specific development-related questions.  I felt that this was completely inappropriate for me, since making recommendations about anything development related (Isthmus or otherwise) would have been a direct conflict of interest with my responsibilities on the Planning Commission.  I resigned from the group immediately, and, further, reached out to several City Council members whom I had previously met with regarding the group and its initial intentions and let them know that I was no longer involved, and why.

When Oly2012 presented to the Editorial Board, they were asked questions about their intentions regarding the Isthmus by editors from the paper (not me and not the other community rep) and the Oly2012 leaders responded that they had not yet taken a stand on it.  This was a credible response from my point of view, as up until I left the group, it wasn’t even on the radar screen as far as I knew.  They subsequently put out an issue paper on the topic that supported raising heights along with acquiring and demolishing the Capital Center, but that was not until almost two months after the Olympian’s editorial ran. 

In any case, my response to the presentation was that I supported the creation of a group that would “do a great deal of research, educate the public on their findings, motivate people to get involved and show them how to do just that.”  That is verbatim from the editorial, and I continue to believe that the existence of groups that base their participation in the public process on facts, sound reasoning and good judgment is desirable, regardless of what conclusions they come to.  That sentiment isn’t one that in any way interfered with my duties and responsibilities as Planning Commission member.  The editorial in question, like the presentation and discussion that preceded it, didn’t have to do with my (or anyone’s) land-use opinions, it had to do with recognizing the merit of a group that came together to argue for good decision-making with regard to land-use issues. 

                                                            iii.      I completely recused myself from the presentation by Oly2012 that preceded the June 15 editorial as well as the discussion that followed and the drafting of the editorial itself.  The editorial page editor did not send me a copy of the editorial ahead of time for my comments.   I made it completely clear to the Planning Commission (on June 2, 2008, see http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/documents/OlympiaPlanningCommission/060208/060208Final.pdf) and then again to the public at the June 24, 2008 (see http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/documents/OlympiaPlanningCommission/062408/062408Final.pdf) hearing that I was in no way involved in the deliberation or writing of the editorial.  I further disclosed to the Planning Commission that I had attended Oly2012 meetings before they became involved in the Isthmus issue (see June 16, 2008 meeting minutes at http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/documents/OlympiaPlanningCommission/061608/061608Final.pdf, which were amended and approved at http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/documents/OlympiaPlanningCommission/070708/070708FinalVerbatim.pdf ).

Here is the exact text of an email I wrote to the Olympian’s editorial page editor on June 2, 2008 (before any of the meetings or the editorial; my first sentence is in response to a reminder to attend a meeting on the following day):

-----------------------------

Re: Remember we have Steve Reynolds from Puget Sound Energy at 2 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday, 6-2). Mike O

Monday, June 2, 2008 9:33 PM

From:

"Matthew Litwin" <mlitwin10@yahoo.com>

To:

"Oakland, Mike" <MOakland@theolympian.com>

Mike,

I'll be there.

There was some discussion tonight at the Planning Commission about my role on the Ed Board during times when the board may be considering/meeting with those who have a vested interest in the outcome of the CPAs, especially (not surprisingly) the isthmus issue.  There's two things they asked me to do: 1) recuse myself from any meetings where these issues might be discussed and 2) ask you to (very briefly) mention in print that I recused myself in any editorial you end up printing while I'm on the board (or shortly after I leave) about the issue.  The only meeting/piece I can think of that will overlap is with the Olympia 2012 group, but if anything else comes up in the next few weeks, or if you and the other editors end up deciding to put out a piece on the height issue itself, I'd really appreciate if you could help me out on these requests.  FYI, there's so much concern about the isthmus issue that they asked me to mention that I am/was on the board but that I haven't been involved in any pieces on the height issue at the 6/24 hearing.  Oh, the drama.

Thanks very much,

Matt

------------------------------

[Just to clarify…the 2012 reference was to a second visit to the Olympian by leaders of that group after they published their pro-rezone opinion.  Anyone who wants me to forward them the email so that there’s no question about its authenticity, just contact me and I’ll be happy to do so.]

Here’s the editor’s response:

------------------------------

Oakland, Mike <MOakland@theolympian.com>               Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:04 PM

To: Matthew Litwin <mlitwin10@gmail.com>

            You didn’t get a long editorial today because it’s the isthmus edit that runs on Sunday. This is the note I put at the end. Does it meet your needs?

(Editor’s note: Matthew Litwin, a community representative on The Olympian’s editorial board and a member of the Olympia Planning Commission, recused himself from the editorial board’s discussion on this issue and the drafting of this editorial.)

------------------------------

Regarding the separate accusation that I was pushing for an “inappropriate” editorial, I believe JLW is not aware of either the public record (see above for link to June 2, 2008 meeting) nor what the Olympian actually published or when.  At the Planning Commission meeting on June 20, 2008 (prior to the the public hearing held regarding the Isthmus rezone) I disclosed to the Commission several facts: 1) that I was on the Editorial Board; 2) that the Board was considering writing a piece regarding what makes for good and useful testimony (regardless of pro or con) and 3) as a Community Representative for The Olympian, I was by definition playing a role in the discussions related to whether such an editorial would be a good idea.  I disclosed this in an effort to solicit feedback from my fellow Planning Commissioners.  The City’s staff representative and several Planning Commissioners voiced their concern that anything the Olympian wrote that even tangentially was related to the Isthmus could be misread, and I agreed—I felt like they made a good point that it was better to err on the side of great caution. 

As a result, the Olympian never published an essay with their recommendations for “helpful” input until well after I was off the Editorial Board and well after the Planning Commission concluded its own public hearing and recommendation process.  That editorial, “Don’t repeat points at land use hearing,” ran on August 12, 2008 ahead of the City Council’s meeting.  As a citizen, I thought that editorial was a good one, but it had nothing to do with my opinions on land-use planning.  What’s more I explicitly asked the Planning Commission if they were satisfied with my disclosures and there was unanimous agreement to that effect.

Lastly, and unrelated, I want to volunteer another exchange that JLW didn’t  mention.  Before the beginning of the Planning Commission’s June 2, 2008 meeting, I was approached by an attorney involved with another (non-Isthmus) related rezone.  He told me that he worked for a firm that I had done a small amount of business with, and wanted to see if he could speak with me about some of the testimony.  I felt it would be better for all involved if his testimony, feedback and/or questions were heard by the Commission as a whole and told him so.  I then disclosed this to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting and asked the attorney to communicate with us as a group and not with me directly.  This is on the record.  I mention this because I think it lends credence that I’m careful to follow the law and not even give the appearance of impropriety.  I took my responsibility on the Planning Commission seriously.

To sum up, I tried to go to the maximum lengths possible to make it clear to everyone that I was doing the right things, in the right way, by separating my responsibilities as a Planning Commission member from my responsibilities as a Community Representative at the Olympian.  I hope the facts leave little room for the damaging and false accusations leveled by JLW on this front.

III.                The claim: I was domineering and didn’t allow my fellow Planning Commissioners to get a word in edgewise at our hearing. 

The facts: The Planning Commission’s deliberation on the Isthmus rezone was held on July 21, 2008.  Commission Chair Amy Tousley led the meeting in a clear and decisive fashion.  She asked each Planning Commissioner to speak to their opinion regarding the rezone proposal ahead of any motion being made.  Commissioners Retlin, Reddick, Law, Taylor, and Leveen preceded me.  After me were Commissioners Boyde, Horn, Wilson, and Chairwoman Tousley.  No one—not me or anyone else—interrupted anyone who came before me or after me.  No one caused anyone to abbreviate their comments in any way.  This is clear from the record (http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/documents/OlympiaPlanningCommission/072108/072108FinalVerbatim.pdf).  I spoke longer than most other Commissioners (though Chair Tousley spoke for a good while, as well).  If Ms. Blanding is confusing my lack of brevity for being domineering, I hope the record will speak for itself; I took a lot of time to explain why I was voting as I was, by analyzing all of the major pro and con arguments related to the rezone.    Much of the latter part of the meeting consisted of the Commissioners asking each other questions and responding to the responses.  I took particular care to ask Roger Horn, who’s a very long-time resident (and multiple –term Planning Commissioner) his thoughts about why he opposed the rezone.  I value greatly his opinion and learned a lot from him on the Commission.  This is what I said to him the discussion phase:

“I’ve got two questions; I’d like to ask Commissioner [Roger] Horn and Commissioner Boyde some questions.  I’ll start with you Roger.  I guess I preface it by saying, you know, how much, how high a regard I hold your opinion in general and then specifically I think you’re very good at thinking through the 50 year issue.” 

And then I go on to ask whether the Staff’s recommendation that the height extensions be limited is, in his mind, a sufficient mitigation to the view impacts.  He explains to me that any impact to the view at all is too much of a problem.  The record shows that my response is “OK” but I think Roger (or anyone else there that night) would be the first to tell you that I listened respectfully to him and thought a great deal (and talked even more!) about how I recognized that his argument was a good and valid one that deserved a lot of consideration.

My thoughts: The bottom line for me is that I can understand why JLW or others might be disappointed with my decision or even that I took a tough, but I think very fair and publicly well-thought-out, line of reasoning to get to my decision.  But there’s a big difference between sharing ones thoughts (maybe at too great length!) and being domineering or bullying others.  What’s more, I don’t regret stating that I felt like some (but not all) of the arguments made against the rezone were intellectually bankrupt—I took a lot of time (perhaps too much) to explain why I thought each of the primary pro and con arguments held weight for me and helped me reach a final decision.  I can understand that that term or others troubled JLW, but I hope she and others can divorce their consternation over language with the idea that I somehow didn’t give proper consideration to all arguments—good or bad—or that I prevented my fellow Commissioner’s from speaking their minds.

IV.                The claim: You “have to wonder” about “people who push so hard to change a place they’re leaving.”

The facts and my thoughts: Regarding my move to Portland: it’s a personal matter related to me and my family.  It’s something that came up quickly, well after the Isthmus issue was anywhere near the Planning Commission.  It wasn’t something I could have foreseen, and frankly, it’s something that I’m doing with quite a lot of melancholy.  I love Olympia, and came here with my family by choice and with an eye towards building a life in a place where it’s a joy to live and work.  I’ve started a business here, been raising my family here and made many close friends here.  I’m proud of the work I’ve done and the life I’ve led in Olympia—not just on the Planning Commission, but as a member of Olympia’s Rotary, as a member of my synagogue, as a new dad, and as a husband and friend.  I intend to keep a very close relationship with all of my personal and professional friends here and am looking forward to sticking with what I see as great business opportunities here over the long haul.

I wish JLW had taken the time to reach out to me directly with her concerns and accusations.  She and I may never see eye-to-eye on the Isthmus issue, and she may not even like me or how I discharged my responsibilities on the Planning Commission, but I’m really perplexed by the intensity of her unrelenting public attacks, both online and off.   To the extent that any OlyBlog readers know some of the Planning Commissioners, especially the ones I didn’t vote with on the Isthmus issue (Larry Leveen, James Reddick or Roger Horn), I’d ask you to reach out to them and ask them for their opinions of me and how I handled my role on the Commission in general and particularly with regard to the Isthmus.  When I resigned, I heard some of the nicest compliments I’ve ever received from some of the people I disagreed with most sincerely (on the Isthmus and otherwise).  I wish all members of our community could be as graceful.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Council Member Messmer,

I want to reiterate, in writing, how disappointed I was that you chose to utilize your public address time at this week's City Council meeting to decry an essay that raised prescient concern about how some opponents of the rezone process have turned to dangerous and damaging tactics in their efforts to oppose this measure.  As you know, the essay in question (http://everydayolympia.com/news/2008/12/real-progress/) explicitly recognized the difference between the legal and in some cases commendable actions of groups like Friends of the Waterfront who oppose the isthmus rezone, and the illegal and dangerous actions of vandals and thugs who seek to frighten and oppress our city government and its citizens into inaction.

Rather than use your public-facing position for the benefit of our community by demanding that those who agree with your position—but who lack the reason, experience, and maturity to express it in a constructive fashion—refrain from further violence and intimidation, you chose instead to castigate the author and his message, while absolving yourself and those who share your point of view of any responsibility for what transpired before (and now, after).   

What you did not do, and have not done before or after, to my knowledge, was communicate to all of those whose voices you represent that the actions of the best are marred by those of the worst; that, in fact, it’s impossible for the vast majority of those in the anti-rezone camp who aren’t responsible for these actions to somehow be completely absolved of responsibility for those who are, when nothing is done on a pro-active basis to rein in the criminal and caustic.  Perhaps you’ve met with Friends of the Waterfront and encouraged them to allocate some of their newfound wealth towards a vandalism-relief fund or a reward for identifying the perpetrators of the hate crimes against your fellow Council member.  Or, maybe you are planning a public press conference with Tri Vo, the Police Chief and Mayor Mah to send the message that, whatever your view on the isthmus, you stand united against intimidation, property damage, and anything other than civil
conversation as Olympia navigates this tough issue. 

Heretofore, I haven’t seen anything of the sort from you or other leaders in the anti-rezone movement.  Instead I see innuendo—veiled and otherwise—that well-regarded members of our community are corrupting the civic process, that nearly all developers and development in general are to be viewed with great distrust, and that anyone who favors the rezone must not have Olympia’s best interests at heart.  Are you really that shocked about what’s transpired?  Are you anticipating how bad it might yet get?

There is no Chinese Wall that can—or should—separate a group's best-intentioned members from its worst; leaders don’t have the luxury of just leading their best-behaved followers.  Let me be clear, though, lest you come away with the impression that I believe you or other leaders in the anti-rezone movement directed the self-styled “anarchists” to destroy more property on Thursday night.  I don’t.   

Instead, I believe that the errors have been those of omission, not commission.  I think that by parroting the line of the leaders of the anti-rezone movement that you "condemn the acts" but can't, don't, and won't take any responsibility for them, you are just mimicking the contrived "shock" that John McCain expressed when he was ultimately faced, at rallies and speeches, with the ugly racism and intolerance that he, his running mate, and campaign strategists themselves fanned during the campaign season. 

It's my opinion that the real failure of your actions on the City Council, along with the broader anti-rezone movement, is not the failure to convince your colleagues to vote against the proposed comp-plan amendment, but rather the stubborn, selfish, and ultimately very destructive unwillingness to try to actively combat the extremely negative approach adopted by some who agree-violently-with your point of view.  I hope you will take a different tack going forward.

Sincerely,


Matthew Litwin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear [deleted names to respect privacy of the recipients],

As you all know, I spoke with each of you about a week ago regarding my concern that some in the anti-rezone movement have adopted tactics meant to be damaging to me on a personal and professional level.  I know (to varying degrees) and respect each of you and wanted to reach out personally to enlist your help.

Following those conversations, I attended last week's City Council meeting (as did many of you) and was greatly disappointed by Council Member Messmer's use of her public address time to seemingly fan the flames of personal discord within our community, rather than encourage those who support her point of view in this difficult process to seek higher ground in terms of both what is said and done in the name of the proposed comp plan amendment.  We are all aware of the further violence and physical destruction that followed the meeting last week.

I am copying below the text of an email message I sent to Council Member Messmer at the end of last week to each of you.  I am also cc'ing two individuals I don't know personally but whom I'm aware are also leaders in the collective efforts against the rezone and/or for a park initiative.  So that there is not the least bit of confusion about my message or motives, I want to make the following as clear to each of you as I hope I did to Council Member Messmer:

1) I don't think any of you or those who count themselves amongst your closest and publicly-active supporters have been directly responsible for the violence or intimidation in our community.  It strikes me that you're all savvy enough to know that it's probably counterproductive in the long run.  I don't think you directed the self-styled "anarchists" to do what they've done, either.

2) I'm not interested in debating the policy decisions regarding my support for the rezone during the time that I was a Planning Commissioner.  My letter to Council Member Messmer, which discusses my disappointment at her actions also criticizes your collective groups and their leadership exclusively on the grounds of how your "battle" is being fought, not the merits of any particular point of view.

3) I recognize that my letter may make some of you uncomfortable and or angry at the sentiments expressed, but my goal is not to goad you (or Council Member Messmer) into further bickering or hostility.  My goal is simply to call out what I see as the escalating danger in our community and communicate that, whether you like it or not, the violence is being carried out in the name of your collective vision(s) for Olympia.  As I say in my letter below, you (like any group of leaders) don't have the luxury of picking and choosing only your best behaved members.  I believe each of you ought to take some degree of responsibility on a personal- and group-level for the corrosive and hateful direction this debate has taken, and we should all seek to work together to tamp it down and show that tough policy decisions don't need to lead to any kind of violence. 

4) I imagine that many of your responses will be along the lines of "he started it," or "just look at the other side."  In your minds, there may be validity to this kind of equivocation, but in my mind, by and large those who are in favor of the rezone have avoided the kinds of personal attacks on character, integrity, and honesty that have been the hallmarks of many of your supporters' actions.  And, obviously, we haven't seen dishonestly-phrased polls or personal property damage carried out in the name of those who support the rezone.  We haven't heard a Council Member say, verbatim, "I was browbeaten and bullied" into supporting the rezone.  I'm virtually certain you'll call it sanctimonious, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of fair criticisms to level at me, but ultimately I do think there is responsibility to be apportioned here.  I wish some or all of you would have taken it on yourselves spontaneously, but heretofore I haven't seen any indication
you have, are, or will do so in a really meaningful way (see my letter for ways that I think would be powerful).  I hope some of you step up soon and want you to know that if you do, I'll be just as soon to praise you and your efforts despite our clear policy differences.  I also want to make it clear that I sent this letter to each of you, rather than posting it on a community bulletin board, for a reason--I'm trying to push for things to get better, not to create yet another flame war.

Sincerely,

Matthew Litwin
Planning Commissioner, 2007 & 2008
City of Olympia