Camden: Lawmakers hear pitch to name state fungus among us

The state mushroom idea came from a slightly older set, some students at The Evergreen State College, who still got the kid gloves treatment by members of the House State Government Committee. Matthew Hurley told lawmakers the pine mushroom is the perfect fungus for the state to honor because of the symbiotic relationship it has with pine trees, making them grow bigger and faster; its a food source prized by both the Asian communities and the Salish tribes; and it could boost tourism and help veterans who might be recruited to pick them.

(Apparently someone impressed on Hurley the need to boost multiculturalism, economic benefits and veterans to catch the attention of various factions in the Legislature. Give the man an A.)

Emily Hall may have gone just a bit overboard when she suggested this fungus — or any fungus — is “an incredible reflection of who we are as a state.”

Committee members refrained from asking the first question that might pop up in their constituents’ minds: Why do we need a state fungus? One might equally ask why do we need a state fossil, state oyster, state amphibian or a state endemic mammal?

The second question a constituent might ask — how many states have a state fungus? — also did not come up. Quick, but by no means definitive, research on Google says only Oregon and Minnesota, while Missouri lawmakers considered such a move several years ago but never sealed the deal.

But if Washington must have a state fungus, it may as well be the pine mushroom. Some other state might claim Tricholoma magnivelare and Washington might have to fall back on another fungus. Like athlete’s foot.

Hardly a laughing matter

The state mushroom bill hearing prompted Rep. Morgan Irwin, R-Enumclaw, to try his hand at comedy, with a pun about the fungus being small because it grows on pine roots where there isn’t mush room. Get it: mushroom, mush room, much room?

We offer this not for the humor, but as a teachable moment. Lawmakers should not quit their nice, cushy day jobs to do standup.

Strange bedfellows

Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, and Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, are pretty far apart politically, but they managed to agree, albeit briefly, on the importance of a bill during a session of the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill was HB 2097, which prohibits employers or government officials from keeping a list of employees’ or citizens’ religious affiliations or asking about someone’s faith.

“This seems like it fits well with Washington values, in terms of both religious freedom and federal intervention on these things,” Jinkins said, urging the committee to vote yes.

Shea, too, urged a yes vote. “On a day when many view the Washington state Supreme Court opinion as enshrining the persecution of Christians, I think this bill gives us hope.”

That was a reference to the court’s 9-0 ruling that morning that said a florist in the Tri-Cities couldn’t refuse to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Jim Camden is a columnist with the Spokesman-Review in Spokane. Email: jimc@spokesman.com.