Actually Olycop is not my subordinate. Olympia has a Council/Manager form of government. The Council sets policy; the City Manager is responsible for administration of the organization. The City Council only has direct control (ie, the ability to hire and fire) the City Manager and the Police Auditor. Bottom line: Even if for some reason I or any other Councilmember wanted to retaliate against a specific employee we cannot do so.

Excellent points. I understand and accept why some people would wish to remain anonymous, though I personally would never do so. As far as I am concerned, anyone who steps forward with an opinion that they are willing to stand behind with their identity is on the same level as anyone else who does so, whether they are prileged or not, white or not, male or not.

Some of the automakers (for example, GM) are involved in nukes. The same policy would apply as in the Nextel example. In the future, all other things being equal, the NFZ ordinance would dictate that we purchase vehicles from companies not involved in nukes . If all things are not equal (price, quality, etc) waivers can be used to purchase from suppliers involved in nukes, with public disclosure that a waiver is being granted.

Fire Inside: As repatedly stated, the NFZ is more than symbolic. It aims to change the way the City does business. As far as it being completely unnecessary, I can understand that perspective. However, as I noted in discussion the night of the public hearing I believe there are many good reasons for local governments to get involved in this issue, ranging from the fact that cities are the most likely targets for the use of nuclear weapons (deliberate or accidental)to the fact connection between expenditures on nuclear weapons and lack of resources available to help local governments address a host of pressing social problems. As far as time and money spent on the ordinance, it was less than $2,000 out of roughly $80 million operating budget. You might consider it a waste, albeit a small one. But others that have contacted us have said it was an important investment. At any rate, its less than the City pays each year for employee overtime at Lakefair. The International Court ruling was about the possession of nuclear weapons, not their use. Yes, NPT refers to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article 6 of that treaty, signed by the US, commits us to eliminate all of our nukes. The essence of the NPT comes in the form of a bargain. Countries that do not possess nukes agree not to acquire them. In exchange, countries with nukes agree to give them up. The NPT has done a pretty good job at stopping proliferation, and a lousy job at fostering abolition. And the fact that it has not fostered abolition is beginning to undermine its value in halting proliferation. I can see why countries such as Iran or North Korea might want to develop nuclear weapons, when they look at the US and other nuclear powers and see how many we have with no apparent commitment to following the rule of law and eliminating them. No one should have nuclear weapons, and the US should lead by example.

Who are you talking about that get stepped on?