Conservation group sues governor over Wildlife Commission appointment
Apr. 24—OLYMPIA — An Olympia-based conservation organization has filed a lawsuit against Gov. Bob Ferguson over his reappointment of Molly Linville to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, arguing Linville cannot hold two elected or appointed positions simultaneously.
The Washington Wildlife First Foundation's lawsuit, filed in Thurston County Superior Court on Tuesday, alleges that Linville is ineligible to serve on the commission since she also serves as a member of the Palisades School Board.
According to a letter obtained by The Spokesman-Review, Linville resigned from the Palisades School Board.
The nine members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission hold six-year terms and are tasked with overseeing the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The commission must include three members from Western and Eastern Washington and three members who can be from anywhere in the state.
While membership requires Senate confirmation, members serve as voting members on the commission while awaiting approval.
According to her resignation letter, Linville stepped down from the school board Thursday.
"Rather than drag the school through the mud and clog up the courts with this lawsuit, I am choosing to step down," Linville wrote, adding that she had "done nothing more wrong than volunteering my time to two entities."
The Palisades School District has 29 students and three teachers in Douglas County.
Claire Davis, executive director of Washington Wildlife First, said Thursday it was unclear how the resignation would impact the lawsuit. A spokesperson for Ferguson did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.
Days before the session ends, it is uncertain if the Senate will vote on the nominations before it adjourns on Sunday. The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled to hold an executive session on three appointments to the commission on Friday morning. With so little time remaining in the session, the nominations might not be brought to vote before the full Senate.
Days before he left office, Jay Inslee nominated Ferry County rancher Lynn O'Connor to Linville's position representing Eastern Washington on the commission.
Ferguson announced on April 9 that he had nominated Linville, Jim Anderson and Victor Garcia to the commission, writing in a statement that the three brought "deep and varied experience, as well as unique perspectives to the Fish & Wildlife Commission."
The appointment comes after the governor's office reviewed 14 eligible nominations to the commission.
Linville, a rancher from Douglas County, was previously appointed to a six-year term by Inslee in 2019.
According to Linville's biography provided in Ferguson's announcement, she received a bachelor's degree in wildlife biology from the University of Montana and previously worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a wildlife biologist and a refuge manager.
While on the commission, Linville has worked with lawmakers on fire suppression in communities not served by a fire district and on fire impacts on rangeland, according to her commission biography.
In 2018, Linville received the Redd Fund Award from the Society for Range Management for excellence in range management.
The Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation filed a similar lawsuit in 2023 after Inslee appointed Commissioner Lorna Smith, who also served on the Jefferson County Planning Commission, to the post. Following the lawsuit, Smith resigned from the planning commission and continues to serve on the wildlife commission.
Linville's term will expire on Dec. 31, 2030.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans, some Democrats and even ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich weigh in on ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's sentence
In what's become somewhat customary once an Illinois political titan falls, leaders throughout the state responded with condemnation and called for reforms upon hearing Friday that ex-Speaker Michael Madigan was sentenced to seven and a half years in federal prison and fined $2.5 million on federal corruption charges. House Republican leader Tony McCombie of Savanna and Senate Republican leader John Curran of Downers Grove called for bipartisan ethics reforms in the wake of the sentencing, with Curran specifically requesting committee hearings and votes on potential changes — something that didn't happen this session. Madigan's sentencing was 'a stark and shameful reminder of the corruption that has plagued Illinois government for far too long,' McCombie said in a statement. 'Justice was served — but the damage to public trust runs deep.' But Illinois' last prominent statewide politician who went to federal prison, former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, held back on the chance to take a swipe at a bitter nemesis when Madigan was sentenced. Though the two were Democrats, they feuded for nearly all six years Blagojevich was in office between 2003 and 2009. 'When that guy, Madigan, was on the top of the mountain, they were all kissing his ass,' Blagojevich said. 'Now they're going to be stomping all over his grave. And it's really, it's really sort of an unappealing side of human nature.' Blagojevich said Madigan's conviction underscores the systemic problems in politics and government in the state Capitol. 'Is the system in Springfield corrupt, in many ways, absolutely,' Blagojevich said in an interview with the Tribune while insisting he didn't break the law. 'It's a system, I've been saying this from the beginning, it all too often works for itself on the backs of the people.' Blagojevich — whose 14-year federal prison sentence for corruption was commuted by President Donald Trump, who ultimately also pardoned Blagojevich — didn't want to celebrate Madigan's prison sentence despite the two's often-tense relationship. 'I just don't think it's right for me to kick a man when he's down,' Blagojevich said. 'What's happening now to him, I know what it's like. And it's really easy for these politicians to get on their high horses and start kicking someone, stomping on someone.' Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park who is facing a potential fine of nearly $10 million from the Illinois State Board of Elections for improper political fundraising, said Friday's sentence represented 'a solemn reminder' that the duty of public office holders is to serve 'and that there is accountability for those who do not.'
32 minutes ago
Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel, so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government. Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But the iconic American steelmaker and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a ' golden share" — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected against cutbacks in steel production. 'We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership," the two companies said. "This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.' The companies have completed a U.S. Department of Justice review and received all necessary regulatory approvals, the statement said. 'The partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the statement said. U.S. Steel rose $2.66, or 5%, to $54.85 in afterhours trading Friday. Nippon Steel's original bid to buy the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel in late 2023 had been valued at $55 per share. The companies offered few details on how the golden share would work, what other provisions are in the national security agreement and how specifically the $11 billion would be spent. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the order 'ensures U.S. Steel will remain in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and be safeguarded as a critical element of America's national and economic security.' James Brower, a Morrison Foerster lawyer who represents clients in national security-related matters, said such agreements with the government typically are not disclosed to the public, particularly by the government. They can become public, but it's almost always disclosed by a party in the transaction, such as a company — like U.S. Steel — that is publicly held, Brower said. The mechanics of how a golden share would work will depend on the national security agreement, but in such agreements it isn't unusual to give the government approval rights over specific activities, Brower said. U.S. Steel made no filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday. Nippon Steel originally offered nearly $15 billion to purchase U.S. Steel in an acquisition that had been delayed on national security concerns starting during Joe Biden's presidency. As it sought to win over American officials, Nippon Steel gradually increased the amount of money it was pledging to invest into U.S. Steel. American officials now value the transaction at $28 billion, including the purchase bid and a new electric arc furnace — a more modern steel mill that melts down scrap — that they say Nippon Steel will build in the U.S. after 2028. Nippon Steel had pledged to maintain U.S. Steel's headquarters in Pittsburgh, put U.S. Steel under a board with a majority of American citizens and keep plants operating. It also said it would protect the interests of U.S. Steel in trade matters and it wouldn't import steel slabs that would compete with U.S. Steel's blast furnaces in Pennsylvania and Indiana. Trump opposed the purchase while campaigning for the White House, and using his authority Biden blocked the transaction on his way out of the White House. But Trump expressed openness to working out an arrangement once he returned to the White House in January. Trump said Thursday that he would as president have 'total control' of what U.S. Steel did as part of the investment. Trump said then that the deal would preserve '51% ownership by Americans,' although Nippon Steel has never backed off its stated intention of buying and controlling U.S. Steel as a wholly owned subsidiary. 'We have a golden share, which I control,' Trump said. Trump added that he was 'a little concerned' about what presidents other than him would do with their golden share, 'but that gives you total control.' The proposed merger had been under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, during the Trump and Biden administrations. The order signed Friday by Trump said the CFIUS review provided 'credible evidence' that Nippon Steel 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' but such risks might be 'adequately mitigated' by approving the proposed national security agreement. The order doesn't detail the perceived national security risk and only provides a timeline for the national security agreement. The White House declined to provide details on the terms of the agreement. The order said the draft agreement was submitted to U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on Friday. The two companies must successfully execute the agreement as decided by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies that are part CFIUS by the closing date of the transaction.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
SNAP user's testimony causes backlash, cruel feedback
After President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the House, it introduced new fears for millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to survive. The bill proposed an estimated $300 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade. If that portion of the bill passes the Senate as it is currently written, it would leave 12.6% of Americans potentially unable to afford shelter and food. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The way it currently works is that states would begin to pay at least 5% of food benefit costs, and up to 25% if they have higher error rates, forcing states to choose between raising taxes, cutting other programs, or limiting SNAP access, per the Food Research & Access Center. Related: Scott Galloway sends bold statement on Social Security, US economy Republican senators pushed back hard on the cuts, leading to June 10 reports that the SNAP changes were being scaled down. The reworked plan cuts the state penalty for error from 25% to 15%, but Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) told Politico that they are "still negotiating." Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota took to social media on June 11 to share a video she surely thought would be of help to advocate for keeping SNAP intact. But her efforts have backfired. The video Klobuchar shared is of a SNAP recipient named Felecia talking about her experience as a mother of four living on SNAP benefits. Klobuchar said, "Today, we heard from Felecia, a single mom of four who works up to three jobs at a time to make ends meet. She counts on SNAP to help put food on the table. This is who Republicans in Congress are trying to take food away from. Listen to her story." In the video, Felecia says, "I would like to tell you my story on how SNAP benefit has helped me," becoming visibly emotional. "When I had my oldest daughter 21 years ago, I was working three jobs," Felecia said. "One job alone, I had to pay childcare. Another one to pay food, which wasn't enough. And one to pay the bills, and I still struggled alive." Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock Felecia went on to say that she now has a full-time job as a bus monitor, but she only gets paid once a month, which is why she still needs SNAP. "By the time I get my bills paid, I have nothing left to pay for food and other basic needs. If it wasn't for SNAP benefits, I wouldn't be able to feed my children," she said. The comments on the video exploded, causing it to rake in 75,000 views and make the terms "SNAP" and "Felecia" go viral on X. But instead of garnering empathy, it achieved the opposite effect. People in the thread savagely attacked the mother of four, mostly with comments about her weight. "I'm not saying take her SNAP benefits, but what I'm saying is she doesn't need as much as she's getting," X user currermell said. "Either she's eating it all and her kids are already going hungry, or the handouts meant to sustain her life are having the opposite effect." Related: Walmart issues urgent message about the alarming cost of food "Do you know how many calories it takes to look like her? She's doing fine," X user Rafester said. Some opted to attack Felecia's relationship choices instead of her weight, saying, "Why does she have 4 children and no husband? Life choices matter. Sorry but 4 unplanned pregnancies and no partner present is absolute nonsense," X user fictitiousfruit said. A few rare voices in the thread abstained from insults. "Not a single person wants SNAP taken away from Felecia. Every single person wants SNAP revoked for people who aren't trying or aren't contributing to the country they take advantage of," user Zac DiSalvo said. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
