2006 Candidate Questionnaire
SECTION I
BASIC CANDIDATE INFORMATION
1. Name as it will appear on the ballot
|
First Name |
Middle Initial or Nick Name |
Last Name |
|
Toby |
Nixon |
2. Office sought (include office, jurisdiction, position/district number):
|
State Senator, 45th District |
3. Are you the incumbent? Yes No
4. How long have you resided in this district/city?
|
13 years |
5. How long have you resided in King County?
|
13 years |
6. Is the office sought partisan or nonpartisan? Partisan Nonpartisan
7. If partisan, please indicate party: Republican
CAMPAIGN CONTACTS
|
Campaign Name: |
Friends of Toby Nixon |
|
|
Address: |
12113 NE 141st St |
|
|
City/State/Zip: |
Kirkland WA 98034 |
|
|
Campaign Phone: |
425-823-9779 |
|
|
Campaign Fax: |
425-823-3361 |
|
|
Campaign E-mail: |
toby@tobynixon.com |
|
|
Campaign Website: |
www.tobynixon.com |
|
POLITICAL BACKGROUND
1. Beginning with the most recent position, please list public offices which you have held. Include positions on appointive Boards or Commissions.
Public Office |
Elective or Appointive? |
Dates Held |
Leadership Role (if any) |
|
State Representative, 45th District, Position 1 |
Elective
|
1/2002-Present
|
Ranking Member, State Government Operations and Accountability Committee, 2005-2006 Vice Chair, Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee, 2004-2005 Vice Chair, House Republican Caucus, 2003-2004 Assistant Ranking Member, Technology, Telecommunications, and Energy Committee, 2003-2004
|
|
Precinct Committee Officer, Violet Precinct
|
Elective
|
1/2003-Present
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. If you ran for public office but were not elected, please list those races below:
|
Office Title |
Year of Run |
|
State Representative, 45th District, Position 2
|
2000
|
|
State Commissioner of Labor, Georgia
|
1992
|
|
State Representative, 61st District, Georgia
|
1990
|
SECTION III
In this section, we are seeking responses that reflect the four ratings criteria: involvement, effectiveness, character, and knowledge. These are defined as follows:
- Involvement: What has the candidate done previously in family, neighborhood, community, volunteer work, employment or public life to suggest readiness to accomplish challenging objectives? How do these activities demonstrate readiness for the challenges unique to the office sought?
- Effectiveness: Has the candidate demonstrated promise of being productive in the office sought? Has the candidate shown the ability to work with other people?
- Character: Do the candidate's personal traits show the ability to take on the responsibilities of campaigning for and holding the public office she or he is seeking? Is the candidate a leader, participant or observer? Is the candidate trustworthy, reliable and candid?
- Knowledge: Has the candidate demonstrated the willingness and ability to learn and adapt? Does the candidate understand the duties and challenges of the office sought? Does the candidate have a firm grasp of the issues important to his or her constituency and their potential effects?
1. In a page or less, why are you running for this office? (Note: the interview committee will be given a copy of this statement before your interview; at the beginning of your interview you will have the opportunity to expand on this statement in any way you wish.)
|
I first became involved in politics and government as a teenager through the influence of my seventh grade social studies teacher. She worked hard to instill in each of her students a love for our country and the principles upon which it was founded -- individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, the free market, and tolerance. I think often of the principles laid out in our Declaration of Independence regarding individual rights, the purpose of government, the source of government power, and our duties as citizens. I think often of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution and the grand vision it laid out for our government -- unity, justice, peace, security, prosperity, and liberty -- and the securing of those not only for ourselves, but for our children. It is that vision that motivates me to public service: I feel a deep and abiding personal responsibility to preserve and defend what our founding fathers created.
After five years of service in the Washington State House of Representatives, I continue to believe that the state legislature has greater influence over the daily lives of the people of Washington than any other governmental body at any level. Most of the rules we live by and the services we receive are determined in Olympia, not Kirkland, or Seattle, or Washington DC. The education of our children, the services we provide to the poor, elderly, and disabled, the regulation of health care and of businesses, the protection of our environment and of our privacy, the management of our transportation systems, the use of our land: all of these are influenced more from Olympia than anywhere else. For someone like me who has many ideas about how to improve the performance and efficiency of government, it is the place to be. And I know from first-hand experience that a single individual with a good idea and well-honed persuasion skills can have a major influence in Olympia, and therefore have a real impact on people's lives.
In the five years I’ve served in Olympia, I’ve learned much about how to get things done in the legislature. That experience has enabled me to be a leader in formulating bipartisan consensus solutions on controversial high-profile issues such as election reform. With the continuing fluctuations in our economy, we need creative solutions to avoid burdening our families with new and increased taxes. We need action-oriented legislators who recognize the urgency to preserve family-wage jobs and attract more to our state; who will act now to relieve the traffic congestion and the crushing burden of regulation that are driving jobs elsewhere. We need legislators with experience, creativity, and leadership -- the ability to work across party lines, build support for solutions, and get them implemented. We need legislators committed to government accountability and efficiency, to bringing to the public the services they demand at a price they can afford. I have these abilities, and seek to continue applying them in the service of the people of the 45th District and all of Washington.
|
2. Describe your most important personal characteristics or traits as they relate to the office you seek.
|
I have integrity. I strive to be honest and truthful, even when it is unpopular or difficult; to earn the trust of others; to maintain confidences; to admit mistakes and work to correct them, and to admit when I just don't know the answer to a question; to share credit for accomplishments; to hold fast to my fundamental principles. I make realistic commitments, I strive to exceed expectations, and I report the results back to those to whom I made the commitments. One cannot be an effective legislator if other legislators do not trust you to follow through on commitments, and you will not be a legislator long if you violate the trust of the voters and fail to adhere to the principles you espoused while seeking the office. In the incredible rush of the session, it can be easy to set aside principle for the sake of expediency; it takes solid grounding to keep in mind why you are in Olympia and the overriding goals you set out to accomplish.
I am a leader, and passionate about my work. I strive to learn as much as I can about the issues before the legislature, and to be able to explain the issues effectively to others. I am very detail oriented, seeking to make legislation as good as possible at every stage, to get it right the first time so as to not have to go back year after year fixing errors. Leadership in the legislature takes many forms, but the most important is being able to communicate effectively and persuasively, garnering the support of your colleagues for legislation. Such leadership is based not only on technical knowledge, but also on trust and integrity -- your colleagues must know they can depend on your word: if you say a bill does something, it in fact does that and not something else. While leadership can be exhibited in floor speeches or in caucus, it is most effective in the one-on-one meetings where frank discussion and negotiation takes place. Leadership is also exhibited in being able to explain to constitutents and interest groups why you support or oppose legislation, and to be able to motivate them to agree. Leadership is also exhibited in commitment to principle and reminding others of those principles. And leadership also means being willing to listen, striving to find win-win solutions not for political advantage but to serve the people, and never getting angry or disrespectful under pressure.
I am well organized. Organizational skills are incredibly important to being a legislator. Your calendar is packed from beginning to end every day, and you must be where you have promised to be (another element of trust). You may have a dozen or more bills at various stages of the legislative process to be shepherded every day. The dozens of letters, emails, and calls you receive every day must be answered, or your constituents will consider you unresponsive. You must make time to study the bills to be voted on and seek advice from experts, or get caught taking bad votes based on bad advice. You must be flexible, squeezing unexpected visitors and other interruptions into your well-planned schedule with a smile. You must know how to file things where you can find them later. Your legislative assistant is a help with many of these things, but the ultimate responsibility falls on you. |
3. Please describe in sufficient detail, one to three accomplishments or contributions of which you are most proud. These examples should illustrate effective skills and capabilities you think apply to the office you are seeking. These accomplishments may have occurred at any time in your personal, professional, or public life.
|
In February 2002 a young man by the name of Brock Loshbaugh was crossing a highway in Mill Creek when he was struck and killed by a Washington State Patrol cruiser. A few months later, Brock’s mother, Melodee (who lives in my district), called and asked to meet with me and the other two 45th District legislators. Melodee recounted the many unanswered questions about the accident – discrepancies in witness statements, witnesses sent away without giving statements, lost evidence, the relationship between the trooper involved and those running the investigation, the lack of any independent investigation, delayed accident reports, very poor communication between the state patrol and the family, refusal of the Snohomish county prosecutor to look at the case – and asked for our help. We investigated, and found a number of problems with existing state policy regarding handling of collisions involving law enforcement officers. During the 2003 legislative session, Rep. Ruderman and I introduced several bills to address the issues raised. Little progress was made, but we subsequently learned that the same trooper was involved in five other at-fault collisions within a two-year period, had received only minimal discipline, and was still driving on active duty with the patrol. In 2004, we introduced additional bills regarding progressive discipline and independent investigations, but resistance from the politically-powerful state patrol troopers association blocked progress. We were, however, able to form a task force to study the policies of other states and make recommendations to the legislature; I was one of four members of the Transportation Committee appointed to the group. The task force met several times during the 2004 interim. We found that most states have policies requiring progressive discipline for multiple at-fault traffic accidents and for independent accident investigations and reviews in order to improve transparency and objectivity. In the 2005 session, I introduced legislation, co-sponsored by the other legislators who served on the task force, to significantly strengthen Washington’s laws on independent investigations and progressive discipline. The reaction from state patrol troopers was extremely negative, and included a large number of threatening messages to me and the co-sponsors. The threats backfired and only served to help the cause – especially after we shared them with legislative leadership and the news media – and in the end we passed the Brock Loshbaugh Act to require these stronger policies. It took a lot of hard work, patience, and perseverence in the face of harsh opposition from a politically-powerful group, but the resulting increase in accountability and transparency will improve public trust in the government and in law enforcement agencies.
In December, 2002, the Department of Social and Health Services announced that a site near Carnation, in my legislative district, had been selected as one of three finalists for the location of a secure community transition facility (SCTF) for violent sex predators. Quite understandably, the residents of Carnation were shocked and outraged that the state would consider that site, which was in a residential area close to private homes, with no water or sewer service, adjacent to a wetland and salmon-bearing stream, far from police protection or fire services, and a long way from the jobs and services the sex offenders needed. Public meetings were called, which promised to be shouting matches. I spoke early in the first meeting, and urged my constituents to not expend their time and energy on angry shouting, but to be calm and focused, to appoint leaders and get organized, to methodically search the law for every requirement, and to find some issue that would disqualify the site or make it so undesirable that another site would be taken. I was joined by several others, including Councilmember Lambert, the mayor of Carnation, and others in the community. Those who were most energized organized a working committee. I hosted their email list and web site on my server to facilitate communications and make it easier for others in the community to track progress. Experts were identified in law, ecology, biology, public relations, fundraising, and other areas to aid the effort. I worked in Olympia on legislation to tighten the siting rules, while those on the committee spoke with neighbors, examined the site in minute detail, and persisted. Ultimately, it was discovered that the school bus picked up a student almost every school day right in front of the site, but that student had been driven to school on the day that the bus stops were surveyed by OSPI the year before and the stop was not on the list DSHS had used to disqualify sites. When this bus stop was plotted on the map, the proposed site was clearly disqualified under current law. When I and other legislators insisted, Secretary Braddock removed the site as a candidate. While the credit for the hard work clearly goes to the Carnation residents who led this effort, I am proud to have had a part in helping them get organized and focusing their energy on working within the process to find a reason to exclude the site.
For the past 22 years, my professional career has been in the field of computer and communications standards, representing my employers and the United States in national and international organizations. During that time, I have had many opportunities to exercise leadership and courage. In 1984, modem technology advanced to the point where it was possible to send and receive 2400 bits per second over ordinary telephone lines (terribly slow by today's standards, but quite an innovation then). However, unless your phone line was of above-average quality, noise on the line would cause frequent bursts of garbled data to disrupt your work. Various incompatible solutions emerged, and it quickly became apparent that a standard was needed for interoperability. Two major camps assembled: one advocating a technology promoted by Microcom (MNP, the Microcom Networking Protocol), and the other advocating a solution based on the existing LAP protocol used in other types of networks (X.25 and ISDN). The company I represented, Hayes, was an advocate of the latter, and I was tasked with seeing that the standard was based on LAP and not MNP. Both groups presented their solutions to the International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative Committee, the United Nations agency with responsibility for telecommunications standards. No agreement could be reached; the national delegations of countries represented on the committee generally aligned with the technology their phone companies had already purchased, and dug in. Both camps continued to refine their proposals while simultaneously shipping products to customers, exacerbating the problem since each argued that their customers needed to be "protected" in any resulting standard. After nearly four years of work, the leader of the MNP camp (Greg Pearson of Microcom, since deceased) and I realized that the impasse was not good for the industry. We met privately during a committee meeting in London and reached a compromise -- the standard should initially require both protocols to be implemented, and let the market decide based on performance and further enhancements which one would survive. This was risky for both Greg and me, since there was a great deal of animosity between the president of my company and the president of Greg's company, and such a compromise was not in the game plan for either of them. Greg and I presented the proposal to the committee, and the compromise was accepted. I had a lot of explaining to do to my management to convince them that what was good for the industry would be good for Hayes as the industry leader. This ultimately proved to be true: the modem market grew many times over during the following few years as error-free transmission enabled more and more uses and the emergence of the World Wide Web caused millions of people to use modems on a daily basis. (Years later, MNP was no longer required for compliance to the standard because subsequent enhancements had all been based on LAP, but the original purchasers of MNP-based modems had received value from their modems during the intervening period). I am proud of the growth experienced in the entire industry and the huge benefits to computer users worldwide enjoyed as a result of the risk Greg and I took to make this agreement happen, and very proud of the fact that the technology we designed together, despite being competitors, is used by hundreds of millions of people every day to access the Internet.
|
4. Please list or describe your current and past activities in the community in which you have acquired skills that relate to the office you seek. Include your role in the activity and the year(s) in which you were involved. Involvement consists of many areas such as family, neighborhood, community, employment, or public life.
|
LEGISLATIVE
State Representative, 45th District Position 1: Jan 2002-present Ranking Member, House Committee on State Government Operations and Accountability, 2005-present House Republican Caucus: Vice Chair, 2003-2004 Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee: Vice Chair, 2004-2005; member, 2002-present House Committee on Technology, Telecommunications, and Energy: member, 2002-present, Assistant Ranking Minority Member, 2003-present House Committee on State Government Operations and Accountability: member, 2003-present House Committee on Transportation: member, 2003-present House Committee on Finance: member, 2002 House Committee on Children and Family Services: member, 2002 Joint Legislative Systems Committee: member, 2003-present Homeowner’s Act Committee: 2006-present Attorney General’s Advisory Council on Identity Theft: 2005-present Simplified Sales Tax Project Oversight Committee: member, 2002-present Working Group on Washington State Patrol trooper-involved accidents: 2004 Working Group on Replacing the Primary Election System: member, 2003 Joint Task Force on Local Effort Assistance (Levy Equalization): member, 2002 Precinct Committee Officer: Kamiakin Precinct: 2001-2002; Violet Precinct: 2002-present
COMMUNITY
Washington Coalition for Open Government: Board of Directors, 2005-present Republicans for Environmental Protection, Washington Chapter, Member of Executive Committee: 2005-present; member, 2003-present Washington Environmental Roundtable: founding Board Member, 2006-present Youth Eastside Services: Board of Directors, 2002-2005; Advisory Board, 2005-present Kingsgate Highlands 3&4 Homeowners Association: President, 2002- 2006; Vice President, 1994-2002, 2006-present; Board of Trustees, 1994-present Carnation Chamber of Commerce: Member Greater Kirkland Chamber of Commerce: Member Greater Redmond Chamber of Commerce: Member Woodinville Chamber of Commerce: Member Washington Conservation Voters: Member Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition: Member Sierra Club: Member Cascade Land Conservancy: Member Municipal League of King County: Member National Federation of Independent Business: Member Volunteer webmaster for several non-profit groups: 2000-present Kingsgate Monarchs Swim Team: volunteer, announcer and timer, 1995-2003 Kirkland National Little League: volunteer, scorekeeper, 2001-2005 PTSA, Robert Frost Elementary School: Member, 1993-2004 PTSA, Kamiakin Jr. High School: Member, 1997-present PTSA, Juanita High School: Member, 1999-present Right Turn student newspaper at University of Washington: member of advisory committee, May 2002-present Church public affairs director: 2005-present Church choir director: 2005-present Church men's organization: President, 1998-2001 Church Sunday School superintendent: 2001-present Church food and clothing bank volunteer: 1984-present Former church public communications director, newsletter editor, member of regional choir, and regional youth leader Boy Scouts of America: merit badge counselor, 1988-present Waterford Park Homeowners Association: Founding President, 1990-1993 Lawrenceville Jaycees: member, 1988-1991; treasurer, 1990-1991 Norcross Toastmasters: member, 1985-1988 Georgia Association of Taxpayers: Board of Directors, 1992-1993 The Taxpayer Coalition: President, Board of Directors, 1989-1993
PROFESSIONAL
Universal Plug and Play Forum: Chair of Steering Committee, 2003-2005; chair of technical committee: 2001-2003; vice chair of steering committee: 2002-2003, 2005-present Voice on the Net Coalition, founding member of Board of Directors, 1998-2002 International Multimedia Telecommunications Consortium: Board of Directors, 1997-2001 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Senior Member, 1999-present; member, 1988-present International Telecommunication Union (agency of United Nations): Delegate from United State (appointed by Department of State), 1988, 1989, 1990 International Telecommunication Union: chair of technical committee on modem-computer interfaces, 1988-1993 Telecommunication Industry Association: chair of technical committee on modem-computer interfaces, 1986-1993 Third Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy: Member of Advisory Committee, 1993
|
- Please describe the duties of the office you seek. Which are the most important duties and why?
|
As a group, state legislators have responsibility to make the laws of the state. They set policy for the operation of the state government, decide what services will be provided, and the parameters under which they will be provided. They determine the state budget, including how funds will be raised and how they will be spent. They oversee executive branch agencies, holding them accountable for conformance with the law and for using resources wisely. Legislators are the voice of the people in the government, representing the interests of their constituents and ensuring that the rights of the people are protected.
Individual legislators communicate with constituents, lobbyists, government agencies, fellow legislators, legislative staff, and many others to determine what changes are needed in state law and to draft legislation proposing those changes. They conduct or oversee research necessary to demonstrate why the legislation is necessary, whether it's been tried before, and if it failed, why it failed. They meet with other legislators and stakeholders to solicit their advice and support as co-sponsors of legislation and to negotiate the content. They work with committee chairs to get hearings on bills, and to get people (including themselves) to the hearings to testify. They meet with committee members to explain legislation to them, negotiate amendments, and get the bill voted out of committee with a positive recommendation. They work with leadership to get their bills onto the floor for a vote, and again with other members (through the caucus process) to answer questions and build support. They repeat the process in the other house, and then again with the Governor's staff to get the bill signed. While managing this process for all of their own bills, they're also participating hundreds of times over in a similar process for bills sponsored by other members: studying issues, asking questions, consulting with experts and constituents regarding the possible impacts, proposing perfecting amendments, and deciding their position on each bill. They also work hard to keep their constituents informed through email and newsletters of the progress of legislation. They respond to thousands of calls, letters, and emails asking for information and expressing positions on issues, greet visitors to Olympia, and acknowledge accomplishments with letters and phone calls. They attend many events sponsored by groups interested in state government activities. And probably most rewarding of all, they have the opportunity to serve individual constituents by helping them deal with the government and intervene on their behalf to ensure they are satisfied with the treatment they receive and that government agencies are obeying the law and rules.
Back home, the legislator meets with constituents, local governments, agencies, community groups, and many others in a variety of settings to inform them of activities in Olympia and the impact of legislation on them, answer questions, and collect their input for further work. And, of course, an important part of a legislator's job is campaigning -- meeting voters and getting the word out on their positions on important issues so that voters can make informed decisions. All this while maintaining relationships with their spouse, children, and friends, and, since ours is a part-time legislature, keeping their business or job going.
Broadly stated, I believe the most important single duty of a legislator is to be fully informed in order to correctly make the hundreds of decisions we face every legislative session. |
EDUCATION BACKGROUND SUMMARY
FOR PUBLICATION IN CANDIDATE EVALUATION REPORT
The Municipal League’s Candidate Evaluation Report is distributed to voters in print and/or on our website. It includes a summary of the candidate’s education. Please summarize your education in 120 characters (letters, punctuation, and space all combined). The League will delete material that exceeds the space limit by beginning with the last entry. Suggested order is (degree) (subject) (school) (year, if desired).
Note: If this question is left blank the League will not include education information in your candidate profile.
|
Attended California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (1976-77); 31 years experience in software design. |
CIVIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
FOR PUBLICATION IN CANDIDATE EVALUATION REPORT
The Municipal League’s Candidate Evaluation Report also includes a summary of each candidate’s civic involvement. Please summarize your civic involvement in the space below. We will make every attempt to include the information in the Candidate Evaluation Report as submitted. Due to space restrictions in the Report, your response is limited to 500 characters (letters, punctuation, and spaces all combined). It is important that you list your involvement beginning with the most important and ending with the least important. If you exceed the length of response permitted, or if the League should find it necessary to shorten responses for publication purposes, deletions will be made beginning with the last item listed.
Note: This information will appear verbatim on the League’s Candidate Evaluation Report. If this question is left blank, the Municipal League will not include information on your civic involvement in the Report.
Check here if you would like the Municipal League to copy the first 500 characters from Question 4 to paste into this section.
|
State representative since 2002. Ranking member of committee on election reform. Former caucus vice chair. Member of Attorney General’s council on identity theft. Board member, Washington Coalition for Open Government, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Youth Eastside Services. Homeowners association vice president. Member of several Chambers of Commerce and environmental orgs. NFIB Guardian of Small Business award winner. Sunday school president, church choir director. Chair/director of several industry committees. IEEE Senior Member. Proud father of five! |
Finished!
If at all possible, send your response to the Municipal League electronically as an attachment, or insert it into an e-mail message (cec@munileague.org). Mail and fax numbers are listed below. If the League has not contacted you to schedule an interview, please call the League office at your earliest convenience.
Don’t forget to send the following to the Municipal League: a resume, a photo, campaign literature, and, if you are an incumbent, constituent newsletter and other materials. Please use the check-off list on the cover sheet of this packet to indicate which items you have sent.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND GOOD LUCK IN YOUR CAMPAIGN!
THE MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OF KING COUNTY
Candidate Evaluation Coordinator: Jennifer DiGiacomo
Seattle, WA 98104-1614 Fax: 425-671-0506 Website: www.munileague.org