What Auditor Sonntag said here is not inconsistent with what he told KUOW in a separate interview. And we've been clear that Sonntag hasn't endorsed I-985.

Here's what we sent out today that clearly prompted Joe Turner's post:

So far, the paltry few opponents we have this year haven't laid a glove on I-985 or its policies. What's got them totally flummoxed is State Auditor Brian Sonntag, our state's most trusted elected official. When asked by KUOW's Ross Reynolds what he thought of I-985, Sonntag said "it's a good idea." When asked by KUOW's Steve Scher whether we're correct when we say that Olympia ignored his congestion audit recommendations, Sonntag said "I think there is some validity to that." He went on to say that I-985's "effort to take our audit findings, to take our audit reports and the constructive nature of that and try to move it into action I think is a laudable next step." When asked whether the approach that I-985 takes is "a fair interpretation of your audit," Sonntag responded "Yes, yes it is."

Auditor Sonntag didn't endorse I-900 in 2005 and he's not endorsing I-985 this year -- he believes that since it's the citizens' initiative process that it should be the citizens who decide. But he said that should voters approve I-985, "we can handle it."

-- END --

Here's the transcript of his interview so his quotes can be seen in context:

STEVE SCHER: Brian Sonntag, I want to start with one thing. Tim Eyman says that the reason they put up Initiative 985 was because Olympia didn't listen to the Auditor's report. Do you feel that's true?

AUDITOR BRIAN SONNTAG: I think there is some validity to that. Tim's effort to take our audit findings, to take our audit reports and the constructive nature of that and try to move it into action I think is a laudable next step.

STEVE SCHER: And you didn't bring in transportation planners in the state, you brought in people from outside the state to look at HOV lanes who said HOV lanes are underused and you could charge for them. That's not quite the same thing as opening up HOV lanes in non-peak hours to all traffic. ... But in terms of opening up carpool lanes not the same as HOT lanes, is the approach that Eyman's taking a fair interpretation of your audit?

AUDITOR BRIAN SONNTAG: Yes, yes it is.

STEVE SCHER: So either way, HOT lanes or opening up the HOV lanes makes sense through your audit?

AUDITOR BRIAN SONNTAG: Well it does, and hey, furthering discussion is a primary goal of any audit.

STEVE SCHER: All right.

...

STEVE SCHER: Did you, in asking people their opinion in whether DOT was doing enough on congestion relief, did that include informing them of what DOT was doing on congestion relief? In other words, perceptions are not necessarily facts. Did you get facts in that survey or did you get perceptions?

AUDITOR BRIAN SONNTAG: We had nationally recognized transportation experts come in and do this audit. They had done performance audits of transportation areas in Michigan as well as Oregon and California even some work in Texas. And what they looked at was the fact that even in state statute, as well as Department of Transportation's own policies, they removed congestion relief as one of their top three priorities. And it used to be along with maintenance and safety, congestion relief was a priority even in state law, listed as a priority. And the Department of Transportation and the state Legislature removed that as a priority. So to point out the fact that congestion relief seemed to be a priority only to citizens, people stuck in congestion, and not a priority of the agency responsible, was an important point to note.

-- END --

Again, what he said to Joe Turner is not inconsistent with what he said above to KUOW's Steve Scher.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

In an April interview with KUOW's Ross Reynolds, Auditor Sonntag was also asked about I-985:

ROSS REYNOLDS: Tim Eyman liked your audit of the transportation department so much that he has put an initiative together, he's trying to get it on the ballot, and if it's passed by voters, if it gets on the ballot and passes, it would make traffic congestion the top priority of state transportation officials. Now I spoke to you not that long ago after it was filed and you told me you weren't supporting it, why is that?

AUDITOR SONNTAG: Well, I don't think it is or should be the position of this office or myself to back or oppose a specific initiative, especially if it's one that has to do with our work directly, and the performance audits in this case. Those are management issues for the department of transportation and policy issues for the state Legislature to address.

ROSS REYNOLDS: But between you and me and our small public radio audience, do you think it's a good idea?

AUDITOR SONNTAG: Sure I do. I think it's a good idea but I think it's difficult to manage state government or any government by initiative. I think that's a governance hurdle.

-- END --

Again, this is not inconsistent with anything he's said since. In fact, it sounds quite a bit like what Sonntag said about I-900 throughout that 2005 campaign.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

What it boils down to is that Eyman's initiative is not based on anything Brian Sonntag has done, said, or supported, but is simply another witches' brew concocted by Tim Eyman, without any connection to the real world in which it would have to be implemented.

So let me get this straight -- we sent an email to everyone, including reporters like Joe Turner, that Sonntag wasn't endorsing I-985. Right after we sent out that email, Joe Turner put up a post making it clear that Brian Sonntag was neutral on I-985.

And the point is ...?

We didn't ask Sonntag to endorse I-985 because we didn't ask him to endorse I-900 in 2005 because we knew that it was a policy that he had been recommending.

But when he was asked earlier this year by KUOW about the initiative, Sonntag said very supportive things -- we've simply provided those quotes for everyone to read (see above).

There's no 'there' there with this, but if it wasn't this, it'd be something else, so ... whatever.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org

Sonntag's congestion audit does not recommend what Tim is doing in I-985. Yet Tim cleverly keeps promoting the idea that its does.

There's a word for clever stunts like this: Fraud.

Sonntag came to his senses Thursday and finally said of I-985: "No. I don't think it accurately reflects the audit." It's in the PI.

Tim's right. There are tons of somethings that people ought to be paying attention to on I-985 that Tim's not telling people or cleverly side-stepping, like:

When he wrote the initiative Tim seems to have understood that state highway projects are required to pay for art. Wrong. State highway projects don't pay for art. But I-985 assumes as much and increases the cost of every state highway project - 1/2 of one percent. It adds up. It is an extremely boneheaded and costly mistake.

The statistics on red light running tell a story. It happens too much and people get injured and killed because too many people run red lights. That's why there are red light cameras. They work, reducing car crashes. But I-985 robs funding from cities to pay for them and sends the money to Olympia to pay for something else. That makes streets less safe.

Tim also got the carpool lane times wrong in his initiative. In the most congested places, the "peak" last well past 6 pm. Anybody who is actually on our roads knows this. The result of getting times times wrong: congestion gets worse where it is already really bad. State engineers estimate I-985 could well extend backups to well past 8 pm. Even later with the additional car crashes expected by opening the lanes to everyone at the wrong times.

There's more. Like Tim says, there's always something else. There's something pretty stupid on most every page of I-985.

RE: I-985's 1/2% for reducing traffic congestion

There are currently requirements for various governmental entities to "allocate, as a nondeductible item, out of any money appropriated" 1/2% for public art. The clear language and intent of I-985 is to remove this requirement on any transportation project funded by the state (so non-transportation projects -- schools, libraries, fire stations -- would not be affected).

Defenders of this current practice justify themselves by saying 1/2% isn't a lot of money to take away from transportation projects for public art. Well, most citizens view reducing traffic congestion as a higher priority than public art so these defenders of the status quo shouldn't view I-985's 1/2% as a lot of money either.

I-985 creates a new requirement (Section 13 --
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i985.pdf) that says they must "allocate, as a nondeductible item, out of any moneys appropriated" 1/2% toward the "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account" for any transportation project funded by the state. Any transportation project means just that: ANY transportation or transportation-related project funded by the state. State Auditor Brian Sonntag's performance audit reported that a huge number of citizens want "reducing traffic congestion" to be the top transportation priority. But in response, we hear politicians say "we don't have enough money LEFT OVER to fund that." Well, let's identify some -- let's have every transportation project funded by the state 'chip in' a tiny percentage of their cost toward funding the people's top transportation priority: reducing the time it takes to drive our vehicles from Point A to Point B.

It's more than reasonable to have a 1/2% of the dollars spent for transportation projects to be dedicated to an account focused on reducing traffic congestion and increasing traffic flow for everyone.

I-985 also dedicates the profits that government earns from red light cameras and a portion of state sales and use taxes on the purchase of new and used vehicles toward the "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account." But we wanted everyone to understand how I-985 ensures 1/2% for reducing traffic congestion.

http://www.ReduceCongestion.org