Voting by District | Equitable Representation for All | Whatcom County, WA
Monday, December 15, 2014
What Would Be Your Top Charter Amendment?
Here is an open thread where you can comment on what you think is the most important amendment that should come out of the Charter Review Commission deliberations.
During the campaign for Charter Review Commission, the most frequently mentioned amendment/slash/restoration was voting by district for equitable representation. Whenever I explained it, people just seemed to be drawn to it. I like the statement from About Us, on this website:
"The culture of Whatcom County is diverse, with urban, suburban and rural interests. The districts, while roughly equal in population, have populations with distinctly different demographics. We believe the citizens of Whatcom County have the right to elect representation that reflects their needs and preferences."
That's a tough question. The presumption that "What's not permitted [by the county] is not permitted" should irk all free-thinking citizens, across the spectrum. Perhaps the Charter should include a statement about "the rights retained by the people" (Madison's principle is far from antiquated). 42.56 RCW, the Public Records Act (among other state statutes) makes it clear that "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them." The Charter could address the matter, with similar clarity.
Suggestion: I've often wondered if the public would be better served by county government if there were something like a "legislative season" whereby new ordinances (county code changes) would only be adopted only during three or six months of the year. The goal of such a scenario would be to allow time for new policies and laws to be thoroughly noticed and vetted by the public.
In the eastern part of the US, many states/counties use a "borough" approach to keep public business more representative, more in-scale, and definitely more "local." I doubt this commission would consider the likes, but I think that over-centralization has alienated the public at large, and the best solution might be trying something along these lines in the long haul. Some might find the whole concept too "radical" but boroughs (that can have true "town hall" meetings) are very much a tried and true approach. When I refer to boroughs here, in this suggestion, I mean boroughs within the unincorporated areas. The cities (Bellingham, Lynden, Ferndale, etc.) are already political subdivisions within the county boundaries - and city-dwellers in this county clearly have a lot more opportunity to influence "outcomes" than do residents of the rural areas. Think about how "boroughs" might weigh-in. Just a thought.
During the campaign for Charter Review Commission, the most frequently mentioned amendment/slash/restoration was voting by district for equitable representation. Whenever I explained it, people just seemed to be drawn to it. I like the statement from About Us, on this website:
ReplyDelete"The culture of Whatcom County is diverse, with urban, suburban and rural interests. The districts, while roughly equal in population, have populations with distinctly different demographics. We believe the citizens of Whatcom County have the right to elect representation that reflects their needs and preferences."
That's a tough question. The presumption that "What's not permitted [by the county] is not permitted" should irk all free-thinking citizens, across the spectrum. Perhaps the Charter should include a statement about "the rights retained by the people" (Madison's principle is far from antiquated). 42.56 RCW, the Public Records Act (among other state statutes) makes it clear that "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them." The Charter could address the matter, with similar clarity.
DeleteVote by district for equitable representation. The city of Bellingham should NOT be choosing representatives from west, north, and east county.
ReplyDeleteSuggestion: I've often wondered if the public would be better served by county government if there were something like a "legislative season" whereby new ordinances (county code changes) would only be adopted only during three or six months of the year. The goal of such a scenario would be to allow time for new policies and laws to be thoroughly noticed and vetted by the public.
ReplyDeleteIn the eastern part of the US, many states/counties use a "borough" approach to keep public business more representative, more in-scale, and definitely more "local." I doubt this commission would consider the likes, but I think that over-centralization has alienated the public at large, and the best solution might be trying something along these lines in the long haul. Some might find the whole concept too "radical" but boroughs (that can have true "town hall" meetings) are very much a tried and true approach. When I refer to boroughs here, in this suggestion, I mean boroughs within the unincorporated areas. The cities (Bellingham, Lynden, Ferndale, etc.) are already political subdivisions within the county boundaries - and city-dwellers in this county clearly have a lot more opportunity to influence "outcomes" than do residents of the rural areas. Think about how "boroughs" might weigh-in. Just a thought.
ReplyDelete