Washblog

IGNORANCE and SPECIAL INTERESTS
   Throughout the past two years, this observer and others have been struck by the egregious shortage of facts which have been brought to bear on the "debate. There has been a singular lack of incisive questions asked of speakers at public meetings coupled with an apparent lack of preparation (and/or concern) by the Council members themselves. Let's take one example, the Council meeting of 2004, at which a revision of current ordinance to cover birds was first supposed to be seriously discussed.  That meeting was dominated (both in length and tone) by a single speaker--Laurella Desborough, who is a noted antagonist of virtually any legislation to vouchsafe the welfare of parrots [3]. No comparable speaker representing the "other side of the story"--a community concerned about mistreatment of animals-- was invited to speak. Equally incredibly, Desborough was apparently invited to speak by the Council even though she lives neither in the County nor the State, and attended the meeting with the stated objective, not to objectively discuss the issues, but to kill the Ordinance [4]. Even someone moderately versed in the biology of parrots and in previous legislative attempts to vouchsafe their welfare will, upon reviewing the videotape, recognize the generous sprinkling of disinformation and outright fabrication. This deception included the misrepresentation of the positions of both the American Federation of Aviculture at large (Desborough was subsequently censored by its President) and the US Department of Agriculture [5]. However, an uninformed Council fell for it hook, line, and sinker [the Ordinance resolution was unceremoniously tabled]...or were they merely overly receptive?

   It is probably no coincidence that both Desborough and the second invited "keynote" speaker at the 2004 meeting (Julie Corwin), also just happened to be witnesses on behalf of Martha Scudder in Scudder v. Gallawa, a civil suit (discussed below). Julie Corwin is also the re-seller of Martha Scudder's parrots. Who is Martha Scudder? Only the owner of the largest and most notorious bird farm in the State--the one towards which the allegations of abuse and cruelty led in the first place, to the outcry for an Ordinance to protect breeder birds. Is the reader beginning to get a "whiff" of special treatment for special interests?

DICK MURI

Mr. Muri seems to have been the standardbearer of the opposition to the Ordinance from the start.  He has consistently shown a desire to tread on all pertinent facts. Mr. Muri was quoted in the Tacoma News-Tribune [6] as praising the conditions of the birds at the Scudder farm [now called Scudder Parrot Depot], saying that "The birds are real healthy. Their feathers look good. They look normal," even though an Avian-medicine-specialty Board certified veterinarian declared conditions there to have legally constituted animal abuse and cruelty under Washington State Law.  Muri's own conclusion is patently ignorant, since the condition of a parrot's feathers is only one indicator of its care or health, and a crude one at that.  

Ignorance is even worse when compounded by arrogance. Muri was asked whether he intended to take an avian expert with him on an inspection of Scudder farm. He is quoted [6] as replying that "I don't need a vet...I'm going to make decisions as far as regulations and changing the way things get done." Asked whether he would call a animal control officer to accompany him to Scudder's, Parrot Depot,  Muri is again quoted as saying "I don't  call staff; they call me." [6]. Asked to add a person knowledgeable about the humane treatment of parrots to his Advisory Committee, he again refused [2, 5]. "Muri's adamant about having the representation he's proposed," she [Councilwoman Gelman] said. "When I mentioned adding an animal control representative he said there was no need for them to be involved." [7].  A  recently introduced website [8] has chronicled  an encyclopedic volume of damning witness-based and objective findings testifying to the presence of both animal abuse and cruelty specifically at the Scudder farm and in general in his district. But Mr. Muri does not let either fact or compassion get in the way.

   What could contribute to Mr. Muri's refusal to protect some pitiful, cage-bound creatures from suffering? If one asked him, I suspect that his reason might be something like "following the correct political process." When asked about his proposed Avicultural Advisory Commission [2], he replied that such a committee might well deliberate for "16 to 18 months" before even reaching conclusions--in other words, well into 2008, no less before taking any legislative action. Why? Because there are "56 or 57" pieces of legislation before this one, he explained, and this issue would simply have to wait its turn. Asked why, Muri responded with a hint of a snarl, and I quote, "Because that's the way it's done around here."  This, of course, doesn't address  the question of  why he couldn't have initiated such an Avicultural Advisory Commission at the preceding two Council meeting which addressed this issue-- in 2004 or even February 14 of this year. Perhaps it is not the political process that is as important as maintenance of his control over it. The selection of his Advisory Commission would keep the issue under his thumb--right until his re-election campaign in 2008.

One can't say that Muri hides his opinion. At a meeting to discuss both his proposal and that of Councilwoman Gelman regarding breeding aviaries [2], he walked in the room practically arm-in-arm with Robert Vincent.  Vincent, as we have noted, manages the parrot farm which precipitated both the legislative and legal firestorm due to allegations of gross neglect and cruelty. Surely he must realize that bringing Vincent to a meeting to decide how to prevent future abuses to parrots would seem to present a flagrant conflict of interest.

Apparently not. Indeed, sources maintain that Mr. Muri maintains an active personal social relationship with Mr. Vincent and Mrs.  Scudder, visiting them at home and engaging in frequent phone calls; they have been allegedly seen together at Arnold's Country Inn. His personal secretary, L. Swallie has been to the Scudder Parrot Depot [9]. The issue to be raised is not whether such interactions are legal, not does it provide unequivocal proof per se of a conflict of interest. However, at the very least it would present the appearance of a conflict of interest, which seems unbecoming an elected official involved in resolving a contentious issue during which he is allegedly fraternizing socially with one of the central figures. His purported social interactions with  Scudder and Vincent might, at the least, sway his interpretation of the facts  about the humane treatment of breeder birds--which he seems to be getting solely from Vincent, who in turn admits that he knew nothing about parrots before coming to Scudder's farm in 2003 and learned what he knows in two months from Martha [10]. It would seem to be the blind leading the deaf.

  Later, Muri  stated [2] that he would not allow any persons directly concerned about, and knowledgeable in, the humane treatment of exotic birds onto 'his' Advisory Commission. Rather, the Committee was to be heavily weighted in favor of breeder and business interests [11]. I challenged him as to the propriety of this [2]. Wouldn't that be akin, I asked with a bit of tongue-in-cheek, to a murderer or rapist demanding that a "jury of his peers" be comprised of murderers or rapists?  He replied to the effect that it was their birds and so it was their right and in their interest to regulate themselves. Yes, it is certainly in their best interests and that is why his "Commission" is a sham. Seems to me that you don't give the fox the job of counting the number of chickens left in the henhouse, or is that "the way it's done around here"?

What about pleasing the constituency (the reader might ask); is that not a legitimate goal for an elected politician? Of course, an elected official must try to serve his or her constituency as a general rule of thumb, of that there is no debate. Many parrot breeders live in Pierce County; many (but clearly not all) of them are against any regulation, even if it might improve the welfare of some of their "beloved" parrots. In contrast, many (but not all) of the so-called Animal Welfare types are from outside the County. So politically, this might seemat first glance  to be a no-brainer for Muri.

We'll even ignore the facts that The Aviary Licensing proposal Ordinance was supported by both repeated Editorials and citizen polls in the Tacoma News-Tribune. However, stalling for years and years a measure which only involves the provision of the most minimal protections against suffering to sentient beings can scarcely be said to characterize a leader. Furthermore, and more damning, Muri gives the appearance of courting not so much the citizens, as a Citizen --namely, Mr. Vincent. Government is supposed to be "By the People; For the People" not "By the Person; for the Person."  In fact, I know from sworn testimony from a person in very good position to know this to be true, that Muri promised Vincent ( well before any proposals were formulated , no less voted on) that no Ordinance would ever pass in Pierce County --that he would see to that, and that people on the Council "owed him"?  How's THAT for a promise of obstruction of due process? If this allegation is true, then it would appear that Mr. Muri does not really have a slavish dedication to "the political process" the way he says he does and "political process" was, after all, the very reason he gave [2] for delaying any Ordinance until his 'Aviculture Advisory Commission" could first putter about for another year and a half or so.

Washington State has laws against animal abuse and cruelty; the facts indicate that the authorities in Pierce County have neither the desire, nor mechanisms in place, to enforce these laws. Likewise, it is alleged that the locations of the aviaries of some of the breeders of exotic birds violate zoning restrictions of Pierce County but apparently Mr Muri has no desire to see these laws enforced either. If this is true, then again, one finds law enforcement to be a poor second cousin to business interests in this county. The citizens of Pierce County should, at the least, demand that their "leaders" follow the laws; lord forbid that we ask them to show compassion too.

In fact, Muri has used his office for more than decision- making concerning the proposed Ordinance. Shortly after Mr. Vincent arrived at the Scudder farm, Martha Scudder promptly sued  Mr. Larry Gallawa for damages which she and Vincent said were incurred as a result (in part) of Mr. Gallawa's accusations of animal abuse and cruelty at the farm [12]. In fact, at the trial of Scudder v. Gallowa,  Mr. Muri appears to have either sent his own  Personal Assistant Leslie Swallie (who herself has no apparent knowledge about exotic birds) to testify on behalf of Scudder. Ms. Swallie is on the record signing in as as  "Administrative Assistant to Councilman Dick Muri, Pierce County Council."  Here we have Mr. Muri using his office, while cleverly leaving himself out of court. At the least this represents very poor judgment on Muri's part, since the proxy visit of his Personal Secretary (whose we assume is paid for using taxpayer funds) appears to represent a misuse of his office.

CONCLUSIONS

As I said, my outrage is not expressed on this site over the issue of animal abuse--although the total lack of compassion of certain members of the Pierce County Council and lack of desire to enforce Washington State Laws is truly appalling and should be an embarrassment to them. I am expressing outrage here about another in what (I'm told) is the ongoing issue of over-concentration of power--and the concomitant abuse of that power-- in the "Ol' Boys Club", as some people refer to politics in Pierce County, WA. The details cited  in the allegations above appear to contain elements of misuse of office; (apparent and probably real) conflict of interest; alleged obstruction of political process; preferential treatment of special interest groups; and failure to enforce existing state law by establishing adequate guidelines and regulations to do so. I'm not a lawyer; I don't know if any laws were broken. But I do know that, for certain members of this Council, the moral low ground was taken, arrogance was the personal tone assumed; ignorance ran rampant, and only stalling and stagnation was achieved...and all for what?:
to prevent some pitiful, caged creatures their due and increase the chances that they won't end up starved [13], infected, [ 13 ] or suffocated
[ 14 ] to death in large numbers again, and then thrown in the freezer [15 ] or the trash and city dump[ 16 ]?

All I can say to the Council who voted the Ordinance down is:
Congratulations, "Gentle"men, bully for you.

The final Council vote will take place Tuesday, October 10, 2006 , at 3 pm, in
Pierce County Council Chambers, Room 1045
County-City Building
930 Tacoma Avenue South
Tacoma, Washington  98402

Public Comments WILL be "accepted" but they probably won't be heard. Comments to me emanating from Council Staff indicate that the minds of Council members are probably already made up and their votes cast--it will likely be a 4-3 vote in favor of the Bush-Muri proposal. Thus, it appears that this meeting is probably only a legal requirement and a sham as far as public opinion influencing the political process.

Nonetheless, if the Reader is outraged by what he or she has read above, I urge you to attend the meeting and express that outrage. Long after this vote is over, Principle will remain.

Note: This piece was written in conjunction with the Editors of www.ParrotProtection.org wherein extensive evidence, both in court and out of court, is provided to document the claim that rampant abuse and cruelty to sentient birds has existed and continues to exist in Pierce County. I want readers to have all documentation and facts available. I will be back in town October 2 if anyone has any comments or questions directed at this piece.

Documentation

 [1]   M. Tweti,  "County to hear bird law plans", August 7, 2006

[2]    D. Muri, personal communication, meeting in Council Chambers, July 24, 2006.  Also present were: Councilwoman Gelman ;Inga Gibson (the Humane Society of the United States); Natalie Frumin (American Federation of Aviculture ); and Robert Vincent (property manager of Scudder's Parrot Depot); Ms. Susan Mathew ( Assistant to Ms. Gelman); Ms. Carolyn Pendle (Sr. Legislative Analyst); and Stewart Metz, M.D.

[3]   vis., http://www.nfss.org/Legis/AFA-Alerts/AR-09-02-A.htm; http://www.birdmag.com/hr5360.htm; cf. #4

[4] A brief of the American Federation of Aviculture, dated March 2004, was titled "Pierce County Council Table Proposed Ordinance After AFA Presents Position." It noted that "representing the AFA, Regional Director Natalie Frumin, AFA Washington State Co-ordinator Wendy Crane and AFA Legislative VP Laurella Desborough attended the meeting....Their joint effort was successful"  This brief, originally found on the AFA website, has subsequently been yanked but can still be found at http://www.feathers.org/pdfs/april04.pdf#search=%22laurella%20desborough%3Banimal%20rights%22

[5]  A phone call by myself to Dr. dePoyster of the USDA after the 2004 meeting confirmed that Desborough's statements about the proposed role of the USDA in protecting the welfare of exotic birds locally, to be gross misrepresentations

[6] Tacoma News-Tribune,December 21, 2005

[7 The Tacoma NewsTribune; July 31, 2006

[8] www.ParrotProtection.org

[9 ]  http://parrotprotection.org/en/envelope.php?./Projects/ParrotDepot/pd-10-docs.ssi    

[10] http://parrotprotection.org/en/Projects/ParrotDepot/Documents/decl-2005-08-05-704DecofVincent1.pdf

[11] see http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/council/Recent_Legislation.htm for composition of the proposed Commission

[12] for a chronology and further details, see: http://parrotprotection.org/en/envelope.php?./Projects/ParrotDepot/pd-03-chrono.ssi
and following

[13] http://parrotprotection.org/en/envelope.php?./Projects/ParrotDepot/pd-30-nec.ssi

[14]  http://parrotprotection.org/en/Projects/ParrotDepot/Documents/court-2005-01-12-pt1_515MarthaScudderD eposition,Pt.1.pdf

[15 http://parrotprotection.org/en/envelope.php?./Projects/ParrotDepot/pd-40-feed.ssi

[16] Mira Tweti, Tacoma News-Tribune,
December 18, 2005 ;
ALSO:
http://parrotprotection.org/en/Projects/ParrotDepot/Documents/court-2005-01-13-zpt1_519KathrynPhilli psScudder,Depos.pdf