Appointed Ronald Wastewater candidate Matthews responds to challenger Webster’s charges over use of term “re-elect” in campaign advertising

By Evan Smith

I reported yesterday that Ronald Wastewater District candidate George Webster had filed a complaint with the State Public Disclosure Commission over appointed incumbent Richard Matthews’ use of the term “re-elect” in a joint mailing with a candidate for another position.

Matthews noted Friday that he has consistently referred to himself as an appointed member of the District Board and that the only use of the term “re-elect” was in a joint mailing with Ginny Scantlebury, who is running against Gretchen Atkinson for the other Ronald Wastewater position on the November ballot. It is that mail piece that Webster sent to the PDC as evidence.

A PDC spokeswoman confirmed Thursday that the commission had received the complaint and would issue a warning.

Scantlebury and Atkinson are running for the position that Art Wadekamper now holds. Wadekamper was eliminated in the August primary, when he placed third behind Scantlebury and top vote-getter Atkinson.

Matthews and Webster are running for the position that Matthews holds by appointment after Webster led Matthews in a three-way primary.

Matthews sent the following response to what he called Webster's personal attack:

“My opponent in the race for Ronald Wastewater District, Position 4, says he has filed a complaint with the PDC stating that my advertising materials used the term "re-elect." I was not informed of his concerns by him or his campaign, nor have I received any verification from the PDC that it has received such a complaint. I find it strange that my opponent would go to the news media without obtaining accurate information. If he has filed a complaint, I can report to the PDC and the voters that all of my materials accurately point out that I was appointed Ronald Wastewater Commissioner in 2012. None of my personal materials (mailer, handouts, or website) use the term "re-elect." However, I acknowledge that a joint mailer with another candidate erroneously used the term "re-elect." This piece has been distributed and cannot be recalled. The error was an oversight, as I would hope was the case in the more serious PDC violation of my opponent in failing to indicate on his materials who had paid for his newspaper advertising. 

“I believe a more serious issue is my opponent's inattention to facts related to the District and the actions of its Commissioners, as well as his ongoing and deliberate misrepresentation of my position on the issues involved. One example is his persistence in claiming that I am opposed to a city takeover of Ronald Wastewater. The truth is that I have consistently stated my commitment to supporting our ratepayers' right to vote on whether the city should assume control of the RWW District, a position that reflects state law, and that I will support our voters' choice at the ballot box. In the interim, as your advocate, I will continue to oppose the City's demand for increased control of its utilities before careful consideration of potential costs and future burdens upon Shoreline residents. 

“I ask for your vote so I may continue to serve you.”