Mr. Gordon Shaw, thank you for sharing your side of the story. I read from your description that this incident started out as a friend (Mr. Shaw) helping a friend (Ms. McGilton) with a problem. As I continued to read I begin to understand the transaction between the neighbor (Mr. Halsen) and Ms. McGilton was developing into a win-win situation.

However, where things begin to cloud is in the middle when Mr. Shaw indicates that he approached the Water District 49 manager to explain the situation. Mr. Shaw describes that the WD 49 manager would talk with the Highline Water District officials. What was not detailed is was this a transfer of responsibility to the WD 49 manager to follow up on the legality of this hookup? I ask because as I read further into the story, it is stated that the property owner, Mr. Halsen, became aware of the fact that he must own property within WD 49 in order to be served.

What is not known is why Mr. Halsen assumed purchasing a thin strip of property within the WD 49 boundaries would allow him to service a structure which clearly resides within the Highline District service area.

That fact, in and of itself, raises concern. The fact that by running a water line from one service district into another district which is intended to serve the residence will net a savings of over $10,000 elevates concern and suspicion.

I am happy to read that in the end, through verification by the lawyers that what was done was not within the law, that Mr. Halsen is taking corrective actions by disconnecting from WD 49 and hooking up to Highline.

What appalls me is the statements that Mr. Shaw had presented to the readers of his commentary: "... I cannot understand why anyone would give the paper (Highline Times) the confidential memo in the first place. I certainly have no idea why this is of any concern to the city of Burien or to my fellow citizens."

Mr. Shaw can you please kindly tell me, in a straight face, that you are serious in your lack of understanding why this matter is of concern to the general public?

The story that you described appears on the surface as an effort to intentionally circumnavigate the law by employing “work around” tactics to get service to a property while saving some substantial dollars for all pursuant parties, Ms. McGilton and Mr. Halsen.

Sir, you and Ms. McGilton are public figures functioning in a public service capacity. Your service function presents you greater access to policies and closer ties to other organization officials that are not commonly available to the average citizen. Because of this you are held to higher ethical behavior. This, in my opinion is why a “confidential memo” might have been shared with a news organization, to leverage tools and abilities that an average citizen does not posses to get deeper into the subject in effort to get to the real truth.

If you truly cannot understand why this matter should be of concern to the greater public at large, then sir, from my moral and ethical values, I find it difficult to continue placing my trust in you as a public servant.

Clyde Hill

Burien