By Evan Smith
An e-mail from Tim Eyman ten days ago caught my attention.
The subject line was: “Seattle Democrat Darlene Fairley: Misinformed or a serial liar?”
Eyman wrote about something Fairley had said while presiding over a hearing as chairwoman of the State Senate committee on government operations and elections.
The hearing was about a bill to define signatures on initiative and referendum petitions as public records.
After the February 2 hearing, Eyman sent Fairley (D-Lake Forest Park) an e-mail disputing her statement that Eyman had copied signatures on two petitions.
Eyman told Fairley that his organization does not copy signatures on petitions, adding, “I am deeply offended by the accusation.”
Eyman asked Fairley to correct the record.
Later, Eyman sent a general e-mail saying, “Despite being informed of the facts and asked to correct the record, 13 days later Darlene Fairley, on the Senate floor, said, ‘As a matter of fact, the fellow who's famous, or infamous, for doing initiatives and referendums routinely asks for a copy of the signatures of everybody who's signed those initiatives and referendums, he uses them as a money-making thing, whatever he does with them. And other parties, not my party, the other party, routinely also asks for copies of those signatures. So they've been out there for years, and they've copied them and used them.’ Senator Fairley, please stop saying these things; they are demonstrably untrue, and please apologize to me, the Republican Party, the public and the press for this.”
When I asked Fairley about Eyman’s e-mail, she told me she hadn’t read it, understandable since Eyman’s e-mails arrive almost daily.
Fairley explained that someone in the secretary of state’s office had told her that the office had given Eyman two years' worth of initiative and referendum petitions.
“Evidently, that person was wrong.” Fairley told me last week. “If I ever see Eyman again, I’ll have to say that I guess I was wrong. I wasn’t ‘informed of the facts.’
‘I Guess it’s because I hadn’t read his e-mail. Of course, his email was one of 1,157 that were in my “Junk” folder. For some reason, they routinely go there.’”
ShorelineAreaNews Politics Writer
The subject line was: “Seattle Democrat Darlene Fairley: Misinformed or a serial liar?”
Eyman wrote about something Fairley had said while presiding over a hearing as chairwoman of the State Senate committee on government operations and elections.
The hearing was about a bill to define signatures on initiative and referendum petitions as public records.
After the February 2 hearing, Eyman sent Fairley (D-Lake Forest Park) an e-mail disputing her statement that Eyman had copied signatures on two petitions.
Eyman told Fairley that his organization does not copy signatures on petitions, adding, “I am deeply offended by the accusation.”
Eyman asked Fairley to correct the record.
Later, Eyman sent a general e-mail saying, “Despite being informed of the facts and asked to correct the record, 13 days later Darlene Fairley, on the Senate floor, said, ‘As a matter of fact, the fellow who's famous, or infamous, for doing initiatives and referendums routinely asks for a copy of the signatures of everybody who's signed those initiatives and referendums, he uses them as a money-making thing, whatever he does with them. And other parties, not my party, the other party, routinely also asks for copies of those signatures. So they've been out there for years, and they've copied them and used them.’ Senator Fairley, please stop saying these things; they are demonstrably untrue, and please apologize to me, the Republican Party, the public and the press for this.”
When I asked Fairley about Eyman’s e-mail, she told me she hadn’t read it, understandable since Eyman’s e-mails arrive almost daily.
Fairley explained that someone in the secretary of state’s office had told her that the office had given Eyman two years' worth of initiative and referendum petitions.
“Evidently, that person was wrong.” Fairley told me last week. “If I ever see Eyman again, I’ll have to say that I guess I was wrong. I wasn’t ‘informed of the facts.’
‘I Guess it’s because I hadn’t read his e-mail. Of course, his email was one of 1,157 that were in my “Junk” folder. For some reason, they routinely go there.’”
