This may be in response to Proposition 2 & Proposition 3, which would put limits on the County Council in certain narrow situations.
Proposition 2, Shall Charter Section 8.20 be amended to prohibit the County Council from proposing Charter amendments on matters that have been approved by a 2/3 majority of voters?
Proposition 3, Shall Charter Section 8.23 be amended to prohibit the County Council from proposing any Charter amendment to Charter sections 2.12 or 2.13?
Should the County Council propose amendments that would override an amendment approved by a 2/3 voter majority, without a unanimous vote? Should the County Council propose amendments that change the very way they themselves are elected, without a unanimous vote?
A Charter Review Commission is convened once per decade, or more frequently if the County Council requests it. The council has never requested it. The Charter Review Commission doesn't have an opportunity to make policy every other week.
The proposed council amendment would relegate most charter review amendments to the trivial, like Proposition 4, Shall the Charter, in Article 5.40 and Article 5.60, be amended to increase the "concise statement" limit from 20 words to 40 words?
Is this really what we want? After all, proposed amendments go on the ballot, for the voters to decide.
If you have been following the Charter Review process, you might be interested in this.
COUNTY COUNCIL SEEKS APPLICANTS TO WRITE VOTER PAMPHLET STATEMENTS
Council will appoint citizens to Pro Statement and Con Statement Committees
July 14, 2015 – The County Council must appoint either 2 or 3 people to committees that will write the voter pamphlet pro or con statements and rebuttals for Charter amendment ballot measures on the November general election. For each ballot measure, the Council appoints a committee to write a statement arguing in favor of the measure and another committee to write a statement against. Council will appoint the committees at its regular evening meeting at 7 p.m. on July 21. Nine County ballot measures that would amend the Whatcom County Charter are scheduled for the 2015 general election. The Council will consider a 10th measure at its meeting on July 21.
The final meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, July 6, 2015 in the Civic Center Garden Room, Bellingham. Chairman Ben Elenbaas called the meeting to order at approximately 6:10 pm.
During the roll call, it became evident that there was an unusually large number of members not present. Eli Mackiewicz acknowledged his presence, but then announced that he was attending under protest, and since there would be a quorum without him, he was departing. Jon Mutchler was at a Ferndale city council meeting, and arrived later.
After the flag salute, Chairman Elenbaas asked for commissioner comments. Seeing none, Mr. Elenbaas made his own statement, explaining the rationale for rescheduling the meeting. He had not planned to have a July 6 meeting, but attorney Dan Gibson had asked for a July 6 meeting. Mr. Elenbaas speculated that perhaps the reason Mr. Gibson wanted the meeting was because he knew the County Council would be proposing their own amendments, and he would have to prepare two sets of amendments before the ballot cut-off date. Mr. Elenbaas also explained that he now understood why the ballot title now identifies which body brought the amendment. He continued, that the County Council appears to be proposing charter amendments in direct response to the Charter Review Commission, so it would be proper to provide the council with the complete set of amendments from the Charter Review Commission, so they could respond to the final version of the charter review process, that was started back in January.
Elenbaas also commented that at the June 22 meeting, there were only one or two commissioners who said that they could not attend a July 6 meeting. However, a much larger number chose not to attend, which Elenbaas found regrettable, since it was now a matter of choice not to attend, except for one.
Commissioner Joe Elenbaas added that he supported rescheduling the meeting prior to the council's vote on their amendments, so that the Charter Review Commission's amendments would have precedence in the case where amendments were in conflict. The body presenting the conflicting amendment has the responsibility of providing language describing how to resolve the differences. This would put that burden on the County Council, instead of the Charter Review Commission. The last minute task should probably lie with the body making the sudden change to the process.
Regarding the council's action, commissioner Joe Elenbaas continued that there seems to be no procedure for producing a consent item on an agenda without a meeting where that consent was arrived at. But Mr. Elenbaas noted that no minutes for such a meeting exist, and thus may not comply with state law. In closing, Mr. Elenbaas thanked the chairman for moving the meeting up, so that the charter review process would be completed, and any other body that wants to "taint" the process would have to do it after the Charter Review Commission had cleanly finished its work.
Chairman Ben Elenbaas continued with old business, bringing forward the eight amendments that would be placed on the ballot:
Proposed Amendment 1 - Ballot Title, Proposition 1, Proposed by Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of council members within the council district from which the candidate was nominated? February 23, 2015: Approved 8-6 with Donovan, Mackiewicz, May, Ryan, Stuen, and Walker opposed; Ben Elenbaas absent
Proposed Amendment 2 - Ballot Title, Proposition 4, Proposed by Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter, in Article 5.40 and Article 5.60, be amended to increase the "concise statement" limit from 20 words to 40 words? March 9, 2015: Amended and Approved 15-0
Proposed Amendment 3 - Ballot Title, Proposition 2, Proposed by Ben Elenbaas: Shall Charter Section 8.20 be amended to prohibit the County Council from proposing Charter amendments on matters that have been approved by a 2/3 majority of voters? March 9, 2015: Approved 8-7 with Donovan, Mackiewicz, May, Mutchler, Ryan, Stuen, and Walker opposed July 6, 2015: Amended 9-0-1 with Donovan abstaining and Mackiewicz, May, Ryan, Stuen, and Walker absent. Approved 8-0-2 with Donovan and Mutchler abstaining and Mackiewicz, May, Ryan, Stuen, and Walker absent.
Proposed Amendment 5 - Ballot Title, Proposition 5, Proposed by Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum? February 23, 2015: Approved 12-2 with Dow and Ryan opposed; Ben Elenbaas absent June 22, 2015: Reconsidered and Amended 12-2 with Ryan and Bell opposed; Langley absent
Proposed Amendment 6 - Ballot Title, Proposition 7, Proposed by Ken Bell: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County Councilmembers, Executive, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor, and Sheriff? March 9, 2015: Amended and Approved 9-5-1 with Joe Elenbaas, May, Ryan, Stuen, and Walker opposed. Mutchler abstained. June 22, 2015: Reconsidered and Approved to join with Proposed Amendment 18 as one ballot item, 10-3-1 with Ryan, Stuen, and Walker opposed; May abstained; Langley absent.
Proposed Amendment 10- Ballot Title, Proposition 3, Proposed by Chet Dow: Shall Charter Section 8.23 be amended to prohibit the County Council from proposing any Charter amendment to Charter sections 2.12 or 2.13? March 23, 2015: Approved 9-2-3 with Stuen and Walker opposed, Donovan, Goldsmith, and May abstaining, Ryan absent July 6, 2015: Amended 9-0-1 with Donovan abstaining and Mackiewicz, May, Ryan, Stuen, and Walker absent. Approved as amended 8-0-2 with Donovan and Mutchler abstaining and Mackiewicz, May, Ryan, Stuen, and Walker absent.
Proposed Amendment 13 - Ballot Title, Proposition 8, Proposed by Eli Mackiewicz: Shall the Charter be amended to include four political parties, instead of two, in the districting process? May 11, 2015: Amended & approved 11-3, Dow, Ryan, and Sobjack opposed and Mutchler absent
Proposed Amendment 14 - Ballot Title, Proposition 6, Proposed by Jon Mutchler and Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to lower the threshold requirement for ballot signatures for Whatcom County Charter changes from 20% to 15% for citizen initiatives? May 11, 2015: Approved 9-5, Bell, Dow, Goldsmith, Mackiewicz, and Sobjack opposed. Mutchler absent
Clerk Jill Nixon announced that Dan Gibson was on speakerphone, available for comments and questions.
Mr. Gibson indicated that he had done more research in connection with proposed amendments 3 & 10 (propositions 2 & 3). These amendments raised some compatibility questions pertaining to the Washington State Constitution, article 11, section 4, regarding limits on the powers of the County Council. Gibson spoke with Bob Meinig, of the Municipal Research Service Center, as well as Randy Gaylord of the San Juan County prosecutor's office, and Josh Reid, past attorney for the Washington State Association of Counties. These attorneys were in agreement with Mr. Gibson's assessment of constitutional problems.
Mr. Gibson went on to explain what would happen if the measure passed as written, and was the subject of a constitutional challenge. It would end up in court, with Whatcom County having to defend the amendment, and with the ensuing legal costs.
The commissioners and Mr. Gibson discussed how the amendments could be made constitutional. The remedy was to change the amendments to require a 7-0 majority on the council to override the voter preference. There was considerable discussion about how many members must be present to fix an amendment. It requires 2/3 majority of the commissioners present, in order to modify an amendment.
Commissioner Elenbaas moved (and was seconded) that the other amendments be approved, holding back propositions 2 & 3 for further discussion.
It is a three step process to modify an amendment after the Charter Review Commission has voted to approve it. First a 2/3 majority must vote to suspend Roberts Rules to revisit the amendment, then the changes must be discussed and approved, and finally the amendment must be approved as modified. This was accomplished without the help of the boycotting commissioners.
Here is the audio from the full meeting:
After addressing a few other procedural formalities, the commission agreed to cancel the meeting for July 13, and adjourn sine die. at approximately 8:05 p.m.
The Charter Review Commission held its final meeting July 6, at 6:00 p.m., in the the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham.
The meeting was originally scheduled for July 13. However, because of last minute action by the County Council to put competing amendments on the November ballot, the time available for prosecutor Dan Gibson to reconcile the competing ballot measures was severely limited. Commission chairman Ben Elenbaas decided to move the meeting up to the date originally requested by Mr. Gibson.
This was seen as a dirty trick by some, including most of the more progressive members of the commission, as well as Jon Mutchler, who generally votes with the more conservative majority. Commissioner Mutchler abstained from most of the votes involving the procedural process of moving the proposed amendments forward to the November ballot.
Commissioner Eli Mackiewicz showed up for the roll call, and then left, noting that the commission had a quorum without him.
Commissioner Todd Donovan stayed for the entire meeting, but abstained on all votes, until Commissioner Joe Elenbaas noted that under Roberts Rules of Order, abstentions would be converted to "no" votes for procedural decisions. At this point, Commissioner Donovan moved to the audience for the rest of the meeting.
Dan Gibson attended via telephone, and rendered legal opinions on questions regarding Proposed Amendment 3 (Ballot Poposition 2) and Proposed Amendment 10 (Ballot Proposition 3). These amendments were deemed incompatible with the Washington State Constitution according to several legal opinions, because of the hard limits they placed on the legislative branch (Whatcom County Council). Both amendments were modified with the eight voting commissioners present, by making it possible for the council to override proposed limits with a unanimous vote. Mr. Gibson believes this change makes the amendments constitutional.
It is a three step process to modify an amendment after the Charter Review Commission has voted to approve it. First a 2/3 majority must vote to suspend Roberts Rules to revisit the amendment, then the changes must be discussed and approved, and finally the amendment must be approved as modified. This was accomplished without the help of the boycotting commissioners.
The commission finished its work and adjourned sine die, i.e., permanently,
We will post a full transcript of the meeting and details of the final results in a few days.
Join us at the Whatcom County Court House, 311 Grand Avenue in Bellingham, for the next council meeting, scheduled for July 7 at 7:00 p.m. We'd like people to show up early, at 5:30 p.m., for a rally outside the court house, and then to come inside for the council meeting to pack the house, or speak in open session, to appeal to the council's sense of moral integrity.
We ask that people be respectful, not confrontational. But we must show our solidarity against actions that disrupt the orderly charter review process. The council can disagree with what the commission has proposed, but they do not need to spoil the representative process.
If you have been following the Charter Review Commission, you might find this interesting.
A special meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, July 6, 2015, 6:00 PM in the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, July 13, 2015 at the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial St., Bellingham. However, if the Commission concludes its business at this meeting and adjourns sine die, the July 13 meeting will be cancelled.
The twelfth meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, June 22, 2015 in the Civic Center Garden Room, Bellingham.
This was definitely a meeting and a half. Chairman Ben Elenbaas called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 pm.
After the roll call and flag salute, the anti-charter review folks lined up and berated the commission for numerous transgressions involving differences of political philosophy and terminal rudeness. Commissioners were named personally for grumbling audibly at having to turn over all personal email for a public records request, and for offhand and sarcastic remarks about the "other side", found in said emails, which were just not nice. It wasn't all negative; there were a few complementary speakers as well.
After public input, minutes were approved for the June 8 meeting.
Under old business, Proposed Amendment 18 - Shall Charter Section 3.21 be amended to apply term limits to the County Executive? was considered. This was to make the county executive subject to the same term limits as the county council. This was to correct a balance-of-power problem, that might occur if term limits only applied to the county council. The motion to apply uniform term limits to both branches was approved to join with Proposed Amendment 6 as one ballot item, 10-3-1 with Ryan, Stuen, and Walker opposed; May abstained; Langley absent.
Proposed Amendment 19 - Shall the Charter be amended to change the election system to a system of preferential voting? was discussed at considerable length, over two meetings, reviewing remarks made by County Auditor Debbie Adelstein about logistics and expense, as well as possible voter confusion. The commission gave this item careful consideration, but in the end, the motion failed, as being too impractical for the time being, with Bell, Donovan, Mackiewicz, May, Ryan, Stuen, and Walker in favor; Goldsmith abstained; Langley absent.
Proposed Amendment 20 - Shall the County Executive have the authority to veto one or more individual items of appropriation within a budget passed by the County Council, while still approving the remainder of the budget? And shall the County Council have the authority to override the County Executive’s veto by a two-thirds majority vote of the entire Council? was withdrawn by general consent.
Under new business, Proposed Amendment 21 - Shall the Charter be amended to dissolve the Charter Review Commission? was discussed. Amendment sponsor Eli Mackiewicz explained that this was brought to him by someone from the public, and much as the commission accepted other proposals from the public (such as the much despised Proposed Amendment 7 - Shall the County Charter prohibit grants and expenditures to non-profit organizations unless the County is reimbursed by another organization or jurisdiction?), Commissioner Mackiewicz believed this was something that should be considered. In the end, the motion failed 3-11 with Mackiewicz, May, and Ryan in favor. Langley absent.
Following that, the commission discussed the formatting proposed by legal counsel, Dan Gibson, of the boilerplate text as it will appear on the ballot. Discussion about the particulars of the wording of each amendment was postponed for later, but the general format, "the Snohomish format", which more closely follows state law, was approved by general consent.
Proposed Amendment 5 - Amended - Shall the Charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum? was reconsidered and amended with Ryan and Bell opposed; Langley absent. The reason was to clarify the text, removing redundant and potentially confusing phraseology.
There was some discussion about placing related amendments adjacent to one another on the ballot.
Dan Gibson dropped a bomb at the last minute, that Proposed Amendment 3 - Shall Charter Section 8.20 be amended to prohibit the County Council from proposing Charter amendments on matters that have been approved by a 2/3 majority of voters? and Proposed Amendment 10 - Shall Charter Section 8.23 be amended to prohibit the County Council from proposing any Charter amendment to Charter sections 2.12 or 2.13? may be contrary to article 11, section 4 of the Washington State Constitution. Mr. Gibson was very circumspect about what this might actually mean.
The purpose of these amendments was to keep the county council from attempting to change the charter in ways that directly affect council members' method of election (judged a conflict of interest), and to prevent the council from summarily attempting to overturn voter decisions on charter amendments, as happened a decade ago.
Commissioners will research the constitutional questions, and seek additional legal opinions, perhaps from constitutional scholars. Mr. Gibson seemed to think that, should these amendments fail constitutional muster, the council may be constrained by requiring a super majority or unanimous vote for the council to amend the charter. The commission voted unanimously to postpone any decision on these amendments until the first order of business at the next meeting.
Commissioner May made a motion to suspend the rules to entertain a proposal from the public input session, to update the charter preamble to include references to watershed and other environmental agenda. The motion failed. Preamble amendments are popular; however, the preamble has no functional or legally binding effect.
The commission agreed on the next and final meeting, to be held July 13 at 4:00 p.m. at Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham. Note the start time. This will be a long meeting, and the commission will work through dinner. Also, this will be a work session only, to finalize items and meet legal deadlines. There will be no public input session, although the public is welcome to attend.
Here is the audio from the full meeting:
Ben Elenbaas adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:00 pm.
