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.
The twelfth meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, June 22, 2015, 6:30 PM in the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham.
The commission is definitely winding down. New business has them reviewing draft ballot titles, and they'll be selecting which amendments go on the ballot very soon now.
The eleventh meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, June 8, 2015, in the East Whatcom Regional Resource Center, Maple Falls.
Vice-chairman Joe Elenbaas called the meeting to order at approximately 6:40 pm.
After the flag salute (to an image on Richard May's laptop computer) and roll call, a new item on the agenda, commissioner comments, were heard.
Commissioner Mackiewicz clarified the nomenclature surrounding Proposed Amendment 1, 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? The commissioner pointed out that the text of the amendment colloquially referred to as "district only voting" actually specifies a hybrid model, in which the voters of each district would get to vote for two representatives from their district, and one at large.
Then the floor was opened to public comments. Proposed Amendment 1 received the most attention from the public. The remarks were mostly opposed, and the talking points were consistent with the messaging from previous calls for "all hands on deck" from the progressive community. It appears the amendment 1 proponents didn't get the memo this time, so it was pretty one-sided.
Most of the audience left during the recess that followed the open session period. Ben Elenbaas observed with regret, the fact that the hostile witnesses read and believe the negative coverage by various groups and individuals, and the newspaper, show up for the open session, and then leave without observing first-hand what actually transpires in the meetings.
Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Ryan seconded, that the commission reconsider Proposed Amendment 1. The motion failed, 7 to 8, and would have required a 2/3 majority to pass.
Commissioner Bell moved to reconsider Proposed Amendment 6, from Ken Bell: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the
County councilmembers? to change the term limit from thee terms to two. The motion passed to reconsider, but commissioner Bell's subsequent motion to change the council term limits failed.
For new business, Commissioner Bell moved, and it was seconded, that the commission add an amendment that would include the County Executive Officer in the term limit discussion.
Commissioner Bell moved, and it was seconded, for new business, to discuss proportional voting such as the type proposed by Stoney Bird.
Commissioner Mutchler moved, and it was seconded, for new business, to discuss an amendment for giving the county executive a line item veto of specific budged items, while giving the county council the ability to override the veto.
New business will be discussed at the next meeting.
Chairman Elenbaas expressed concern that we are fast approaching the August deadline for putting amendments on the ballot, and so he invited informal discussion of proportional voting with County Assessor Debbie Adelstein present, to explain how such a scheme would be implemented in practice.
Ms. Adelstein responded to questions from the commission, and described the current process. She expressed doubts about whether the equipment we currently use could handle it. This might give rise to extra costs. Also, this would require two ballots, since only Whatcom County elections would be proportional. All the other ones would remain the same. This might also create confusion among the voters. There might also be state or federal approval and certification difficulties. Compatibility with proposed state requirements for uniform equipment could be a problem. A number of other complexities, trade-offs and possible mitigations were discussed.
A few other issues were discussed, including a public document request by Sandra Robson, for commissioners to turn over all emails regarding commission business (including commissioner's private accounts). Commissioners also briefly discussed an article that was published in the Bellingham Herald attacking the commission for an amendment that they had already considered and rejected. Several commissioners wondered at this time, how this was news. Finally, Jill Nixon announced that the County Council is looking for volunteers to write the pro and con statements about the proposed charter amendments for the November ballot.
Here is the audio from the full meeting:
Ben Elenbaas adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:20 pm.
The tenth meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, May 18, 2015.
The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:40 pm by commission chairman, Ben Elenbaas.
After the flag salute (to an image on a smart phone) and roll call, the floor was opened to public comments.
Satpal Sidhu was on hand to present his thoughts to the commission. He implied that the commission was being irresponsible with our children's and grandchildren's futures. Which is what progressives think about any conservative agenda, and vice-versa.
Proposed Amendment 1, 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? and Proposed Amendment 16, by Wes Kentch, Shall the Charter be amended to increase transparency in funding between Whatcom County and nonprofit non-governmental organizations (NGOs)? received the most attention from the public.
County Auditor Debbie Adelstein testified that the council clerk verified that the council could probably meet the requirements of Proposed Amendment 15 from Jon Mutchler: County Auditor duties and responsibilities, without the need for a specific change to the charter.
After a short break, the commission resumed the agenda with old business.
The commission discussed Proposed Amendment 15. Based mostly on the testimony of the county auditor, the commission voted to reject the amendment unanimously, except for commissioner May abstaining.
Before discussing Proposed Amendment 16, the commission heard from county staff, Tyler Schroeder, project manager from the Executive's office, and Brad Bennett, financial manager, who provided information about the financial review that the county performs on contracts with outside vendors. The commission really wanted to know if the county already does what the amendment is trying to accomplish. The amendment was rejected with commissioner Kentch abstaining.
Proposed Amendment 17 from Richard May: Shall the Charter be amended to include a section on districting restrictions? was discussed. The intent was to prevent gerrymandering or division of neighborhoods by district lines. This amendment failed 6~8. The commissioners who opposed this amendment felt that the districting committee took a very fair and diligent approach to county districting.
Commissioner Steuen suggested that since there were no more amendments on the agenda, that the next meeting could be canceled. Other commissioners objected that if there were no more new amendments, that the commission could start work on wordsmithing the existing ones. Given that, commissioner Mackiewicz suggested maybe the commission could reconsider Proposed Amendment 1. The commission rejected that suggestion in discussion, saying that it could be done when a concrete amendment to the existing text was prepared. In any event, a 2/3 majority would be required to revisit the amendment. The commission voted not to cancel the June 8 meeting.
Here is the audio from the full meeting:
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 pm.
Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of councilmembers within the council district from which the candidate was nominated?
Citizens need to know that the Charter Review Commission cannot force this amendment down anyone's throat. If it makes it onto the ballot, the voters must approve it in the November election in order for it to take effect. In which case, we can expect a vigorous campaign season, and lots of public discussion. Precisely the kind of discussion we ought to be having, in fact. One has to wonder why anyone would want to deny voters a chance to weigh in on this proposal.
There have been some alternatives put forth, mainly concerning the re-districting of Whatcom County into more districts. This is worth considering, and the commission is discussing it. However, the main concern is that this alternative proposal, if two similar amendments appear on the ballot at the same time, would be confusing, with the additional and significant complexity of redistricting; it would probably be a bridge too far for most voters. In fact, some cynics consider this nothing more than a poison pill, that would split the vote, and effectively torpedo the original proposal.
There seems to be a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread by factions on both sides the issue. Progressives fear that representation by district will favor conservatives. Conservatives fear that at-large representation will favor progressives and environmentalists. This isn't necessarily so, however. In fact, one of the main proponents of at-large representation from the last time we flip-flopped, was a conservative from District One, who realized he probably didn't have a snowball's chance of winning a race in his district.
The fact is, it is hard to predict which faction will be favored in either election model. We have some history from both models, and so far, we haven't had a conservative majority on the council in recent memory, either way. It is hard to imagine a safe, pro-coal majority (as if it were the only issue).
Would you want Blaine, Lynden or Ferndale citizens electing Bellingham's mayor? Or vice-versa? Why then, would you want them electing representation for your council district? Whatcom County has a diverse population. The people of District 1 are more urban; the people of Districts 2 & 3 are more rural. Each district has the right to elect representation that reflects their local needs and preferences.
Proponents of at-large representation claim that the Whatcom County Council should represent everyone. That’s absolutely true. But representation by district gives us two councilors per district, and one at-large, which in fact, does cover everyone -- by district! We all have the same access to representation, and save for the one at-large seat, we don't get to select the representation of another district. Our representatives would represent us as a proportion of the county population. Councilors and the citizens would have a closer relationship, and would be elected from among our neighbors.
With the exception of the already designated at-large seat, campaigning by district would involve 1/3 the time, effort, and money per candidate. This makes the job accessible to more people. This ought to appeal to anyone who wants to get the money out of politics. Campaigning by district would also amount to 1/3 the environmental impact, in the form of signs, flyers, rack cards, brochures, litter, and last, but not least, carbon footprint.
If we are going to have districts in this county, then we ought to use them as they were originally intended – representing directly the diverse needs and preferences of all corners of Whatcom County.
The Anti-Coal environmental community has been called out once again to speak out against Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of councilmembers within the council district from which the candidate was nominated? If you have a viewpoint on this issue, you should plan to attend. It is important that both sides are heard.
This meeting was moved up a week, because Monday, May 25 is Memorial Day. It is also an "away" meeting, at The Firs Conference Center.
The ninth meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, May 11, 2015.
The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:30 pm by commission chairman, Ben Elenbaas.
After the flag salute and roll call, the floor was opened to public comments.
Glen Morgan led off the public comment, speaking in favor of Proposed Amendment 16 from Wes Kentch: Shall the Charter be amended to increase transparency in funding between Whatcom County and nonprofit non-government organizations (NGOs)? Glen is well known to Washington conservatives for his tenure at the Freedom Foundation.
Local activist Bob Burr held forth on a variety of topics, ranging from non-partisanship to representation by district. He's in favor of non-partisanship, and opposed to representation by district. The partisanship topic came up numerous times as the meeting progressed. Many of the votes were not along party lines, and various commissioners lightheartedly pointed that out.
Several other speakers expressed concern about Proposed Amendment 16, but were somewhat reassured upon hearing that the amendment was being revised, and was on the agenda to be discussed later in the meeting.
As usual, there was mixed testimony about Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of councilmembers within the council district from which the candidate was nominated? A.K.A., district-only voting, or representation by district.
(Results of the commission deliberation and voting will be posted here after the audio has been transcribed. Watch this space, and stay tuned.)
Here is the audio from the first 2:13 of the meeting (evidently 24 hours or approximately nine meetings is the upper limit for batteries in my recorder):
The ninth meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, May 11, 2015, 6:30 PM in the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham.
Agenda
Call to Order
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Public Session Members of the public will have 3 minutes to address the Commission on any subject. Each speaker should state his or her name for the record. To submit handouts, please provide one for each commissioner and 2 for staff and the record.
Approval of Minutes for April 27, 2015
Old Business: Discussion and possible vote on proposed Charter amendments for voters at the next general election. The Commission will take a mid-meeting break if necessary. Proposed Amendment 13 from Eli Mackiewicz: Shall the Charter be amended to include four political parties, instead of two, in the districting process?
Proposed Amendment 14 from Todd Donovan and Jon Mutchler: 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?
Proposed Amendment 15 from Jon Mutchler: County Auditor duties and responsibilities
Proposed Amendment 16 from Wes Kentch: Shall the Charter be amended to increase transparency in funding between Whatcom County and nonprofit non-government organizations (NGOs)?
Proposed Amendment 17 from Richard May: Shall the Charter be amended to include a section on districting restrictions?
Old Business: Proposed Amendments for Voters at the next General Election The Commission voted to forward these proposed amendments to Whatcom County voters. They will not be discussed at tonight’s meeting. However, any commissioner may move to reconsider these amendments during any meeting. Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of councilmembers within the council district from which the candidate was nominated?
Proposed Amendment 2 from 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?
Proposed Amendment 3 from 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?
Proposed Amendment 5 from Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum?
Proposed Amendment 6 from Ken Bell: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County councilmembers?
Proposed Amendment 10 from 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?
New Business
Adjourn
The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on May 18, 2015 at The Firs Conference Center, 4605 Cable Street, Bellingham.
The eighth meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, April 27, 2015 in the new Ferndale Public Library.
The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:30 pm by commission chairman, Ben Elenbaas.
After the flag salute and roll call, the floor was opened to public comments. Ferndale Mayor Gary Jensen welcomed everyone to Ferndale.
There was a short explanation by attorney Dan Gibson about a complaint that someone was reading their email during commission meetings. He explained that's his job. He may be searching for documents, or doing other research in support of the commission proceedings.
Several folks were on hand to speak out against Proposed Amendment 1 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?, and a few people opposed Proposed Amendment 16 by Wes Kentch: Shall the Charter be amended to increase transparency in funding between Whatcom County and nonprofit non-governmental organizations (NGOs)?
Minutes from the previous meeting were approved by general consent.
Proposed Amendment 9 by Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for the election of Councilmembers countywide and by districts from which the candidate was nominated? was discussed. Commissioner Donovan provided more transition language for the amendment. After quite a bit of discussion about how the districts might be apportioned, and with proposed amendments to strike the at large positions, the proposed amendment failed 4-11 with Donovan, Mackiewicz, May, and Stuen in favor.
Proposed Amendment 12 by Jon Mutchler: Shall the Charter be amended to include a new section to require compliance with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act? was discussed. Commissioner Mutchler was motivated by the occasional appearance of City of Ferndale government in the papers for violations of the open meetings act. The amendment is intended to raise awareness and make compliance with the act be the default position for all of Whatcom County. Dan Gibson raised some concerns about legal complications and over-bureaucratization that could occur with such an amendment. There was a motion to strike the enforcement clause, which should be redundant in a charter amendment, passed by unanimous consent. The proposed amendment failed 5-8-2 with Donovan, Joe Elenbaas, Kentch, Mackiewicz, and Mutchler in favor; Langley and May abstained.
Proposed Amendment 13 by Eli Mackiewicz: Shall the Charter be amended to include four political parties, instead of two, in the districting process? was discussed. Commissioner Mackiewicz had a few corrections and updates to his amendment, that he read into the record. Several technical questions were raised (election theory can get complicated). The discussion was going along quite amicably, but time was running out. So this amendment was scheduled for the May 11, 2015 regular Commission meeting.
Proposed Amendment 14 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?;Proposed Amendment 15 by Jon Mutchler, County Auditor duties and responsibilities amendment; Proposed Amendment 16 by Wes Kentch, Shall the Charter be amended to increase transparency in funding between Whatcom County and nonprofit non-governmental organizations (NGOs)?; Proposed Amendment 17 by Richard May, Shall the Charter be amended to include a section on districting restrictions?; were all scheduled for the May 11, 2015 regular Commission meeting.
Here is the audio from the full meeting (our apologies - the soundtrack is a little noisy this time; the meeting room windows were open, so there was a lot of traffic noise, and the commission didn't have their PA system):
Public Session Members of the public will have 3 minutes to address the Commission on any subject. Each speaker should state his or her name for the record. To submit handouts, please provide one for each commissioner and two for staff and the record.
Approval of Minutes for April 13, 2015
Old Business: Discussion and Possible Vote on Proposed Charter Amendments for Voters at the next General Election The Commission will take a mid-meeting break if necessary.
Proposed Amendment 9 from Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for the election of Councilmembers countywide and by districts from which the candidate was nominated?
Proposed Amendment 12 from Jon Mutchler: Shall the Charter be amended to include a new section to require compliance with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act?
Proposed Amendment 13 from Eli Mackiewicz: Shall the Charter be amended to include four political parties, instead of two, in the districting process?
Proposed Amendment 14 from Todd Donovan and Jon Mutchler: 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?
Old Business: Proposed Charter Amendments for Voters at the next General Election The Commission voted to forward these proposed amendments to Whatcom County voters. They will not be discussed at tonight’s meeting. However, any commissioner may move to reconsider these amendments during any meeting. Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of council members within the council district from which the candidate was nominated?
Proposed Amendment 2 from 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?
Proposed Amendment 3 from 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?
Proposed Amendment 5 from Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum?
Proposed Amendment 6 from Ken Bell: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County Councilmembers?
Proposed Amendment 10 from 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?
New Business County Auditor duties and responsibilities amendment.
Adjourn
The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on May 11, 2015 at the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
The seventh meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, April 13, 2015.
The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:30 pm by commission chairman, Ben Elenbaas.
After the flag salute and roll call, the floor was opened to public comments.
Keith Willnauer (assessor) and Debbie Adelstein (auditor) addressed questions about what impact proposed Amendment 8, "Shall the Charter be amended to provide voter education concerning county officials' election titles by requiring ballots to refer to the Assessor as the "Property Assessor" and the Auditor as the "Auditor and Elections Officer"?", would have on the operations and cost of government. They both seemed to think the cost would be minimal, but both wondered why it is really necessary.
There was a large crowd present for this meeting, due to the the local progressive community sending out an "all hands on deck" call for their supporters to show up to pack the house with those that wish to retain the “at large” voting system in the charter now, in opposition to proposed Amendment 1, "Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of council members within the council district from which the candidate was nominated?". The house was especially packed, because the local libertarian and conservative community caught wind of this, and brought in their own reinforcements. It is hard to say how evenly packed, in fact, the house was.
Chairman Ben Elembaas invited the first speaker to be RE Sources organizer, Matt Petryni. Petryni asserted that a change to council representation by district was a move by the coal interests to further their agenda. There was a bit of a dust-up between the RE Sources people and Chairman Elenbaas when Mr. Elenbaas proceeded to read Petryni's entire "call to arms" email. The email essentially repeated Mr. Petryni's testimony, but some people seemed incensed to hear the same message from Mr. Elenbaas. This was called "uncivil" by some in later testimony. It was at least entertaining political theater.
The testimony went on for about an hour and a half. Many of the speakers seemed to be unaware that any decision by The Commission would simply go to the voters on the November ballot. If they were aware, then it exposed an unwillingness to put it to a vote of the people.
Some speakers were outraged that The Commission also had approved 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?", or 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?" (these sections address changes in the nomination and voting of council members; many political scientists believe legislators should not be able to modify rules affecting their own positions). Again, many speakers seemed to believe The Commission has the last word, and will be passed into law.
The Commission can only make recommendations to voters on the November ballot.
In the short time remaining after the last speaker was heard, and after the break, The Commission chewed through a bit of the now-smoldering agenda.
Proposed Amendment 8 was discussed, and failed on a 6~9 vote, with Donovan, Mutchler, May, Walker, Mackiewicz, and Ryan in favor.
Proposed Amendment 13, "Shall the Charter be amended to include four political parties, instead of two, in the districting process?", was discussed, but scheduled for the April 27, 2015 regular Commission meeting.
Proposed Amendment 12, "Shall the Charter be amended to include a new section to require compliance with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act and impose a civil penalty on violations of the Act?" was approved to be scheduled for the April 27, 2015 regular Commission meeting for further discussion.
Commissioner Bell proposed that the Commission schedule a public hearing prior to the final vote on all proposed amendments. The commission preferred to continue to allow "open session" as the traditional, historic public input method. The rest of The Commission seemed to agree that hearings are usually reserved for final legislation and rule-making, rather than simply putting options on the November ballot.
Finally, a new proposed Amendment 14 was introduced. "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?", and was scheduled for the April 27, 2015 regular Commission meeting for further discussion.
The local progressive community has sent out an "all hands on deck" call for their supporters to show up at the April 13, 2015 Charter Review meeting. They are doing this to pack the house with those that wish to retain the unfair “at large” voting system in the charter now.
What is at stake?
On February 23 the Charter Review Commission passed Proposed Amendment 1 to return elections for the Whatcom County Council to a vote of the people in districts. Each district would only vote for the representative in their district. The progressives that will attend on Monday do not want people to vote on this alternative.
Currently we have an "at-large" voting system where the entire county votes for each representative, which essentially makes all of Whatcom County one big district. The progressives believe that "at large" voting will retain a council that only believes in their one sided view of things. They are right.
The progressives believe the "at large" system will retain a county with no diverse voices of the several communities in the Whatcom County only theirs. They are right.
FACT: the City of Seattle voted to elect their representatives by district vote in 2013. Read an analysis of that charter amendment here.
FACT: The election results for the Charter Review Commission itself reflect quite clearly that there is a great deal of unrepresented diversity in thought throughout Whatcom County.
Progressives want you to believe their view is the only view.
They say that our elections are fair even though in the 2013 County Council race, Ken Mann, and Carl Weimer did not win the vote of the people in their district.
They will continue to send out mass emails full of lies and misrepresentations all designed to subvert the will of the people in Whatcom County.
Don't let the progressives take your vote away! Please show up on Monday April 13 and make sure you voice is heard for diverse views on the County Council.
Charter Review Commission
6:30 pm, Monday, April 13, 2015
Civic Center Garden Room
322 N. Commercial
Public Session Members of the public will have 3 minutes to address the Commission on any subject. Each speaker should state his or her name for the record. To submit handouts, please provide one for each commissioner and two for staff and the record.
Approval of Minutes for March 23, 2015
Old Business: Discussion and Possible Vote on Proposed Charter Amendments for Voters at the next General Election. The Commission will take a mid-meeting break if necessary.
Proposed Amendment 8 from Jon Mutchler: Shall the Charter be amended to provide voter education concerning county officials’ election titles by requiring ballots to refer to the Assessor as the “Property Assessor” and the Auditor as the “Auditor and Elections Officer”? Proposed Amendment 13 from Eli Mackiewicz: Shall the Charter be amended to include four political parties, instead of two, in the districting process?
Old Business: Proposed Charter Amendments for Voters at the next General Election The Commission voted to forward these proposed amendments to Whatcom County voters. They will not be discussed at tonight’s meeting. However, any commissioner may move to reconsider these amendments during any meeting.
Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of council members within the council district from which the candidate was nominated? Proposed Amendment 2 from 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? Proposed Amendment 3 from 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? Proposed Amendment 5 from Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum? Proposed Amendment 6 from Ken Bell: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County Councilmembers? Proposed Amendment 10 from 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?
New Business Pending Amendment 12 from Jon Mutchler: Shall the Charter be amended to include a new section to require compliance with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act and impose a civil penalty on violations of the Act? Pending Amendment from Todd Donovan and Jon Mutchler: 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?
Adjourn
The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, April 27, 2015 at the Ferndale
The sixth meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, February 23, 2015. This meeting was held at the Lynden City Hall Annex.
The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:35 pm by commission chairman, Ben Elenbaas.
After the flag salute and roll call, the floor was opened to public comments.
Lynden mayor Scott Korthuis welcomed the commission to Lynden. Four people were in line to speak to the commission on various topics. Representation by district received two pro and one in opposition. The diversity amendment (Amendment 4) received negative remarks. Suggestion to address the "scope creep" of the flood control zone district was presented. Concern for rural culture and rural residents' lack of representation and over-regulation was presented.
The commission discussed ways of having more free-flowing discussion before voting on an amendment. The solution was to have "committee of the whole" sessions, without changing the rules.
Proposed Amendment 4 from Commissioner Mutchler, Shall the Charter Preamble be amended to affirm the diversity of our citizens?, was discussed and rejected by the commission 5~9.
Proposed Amendment 8 from Commissioner Mutchler, Shall the Charter be amended to provide voter education concerning county officials’ election titles by requiring ballots to refer to the Assessor as the "Property Assessor" and the Auditor as the "Auditor and Elections Officer"?, was discussed and postponed to obtain more information from the affected county personnel about how this would affect their ability to campaign.
Proposed Amendment 9 from Commissioner Donovan, Shall the Charter be amended to provide for the election of Councilmembers countywide and by districts from which the candidate was nominated?, was discussed. This amendment is an alternative, but similar, to Amendment 1, representation by district, except that this amendment proposes a different districting scheme. The intention is to provide a way to avoid cutting Bellingham up into three parts, and provide more cohesive cultural representation. Commissioner May presented some sample charts to help everyone visualize how districts could be organized, keeping towns and cities intact, while still retaining equal population per district. (Click images to embiggen.)
Illustration of how districts may be "gerrymandered" for partisan gain.
Our current three-district format.
What a five-district configuration might look like.
A vote on Proposed Amendment 9 was postponed until more information could be gathered concerning how the redistricting would be implemented, and what the transition process would be for councilmembers' terms, before and after the redistricting.
Proposed Amendment 10, from Commissioner 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?, which is intended to prevent the county council from changing the way they are elected. This is in response to the council overturning in 2007, of representation by district, approved by the voters in 2005, before a full county council election cycle had elapsed (two county council elections). The amendment was approved, 9~2 with three abstentions. Proposed Amendment 11, from Commissioner Langley, Shall the Charter be amended to require that the Councilmember At-Large reside in unincorporated Whatcom County and be elected by unincorporated county voters?, was withdrawn because it may not be legal (probably violates one person, one vote). There was some additional discussion regarding commission procedures, and commissioner Mackiewicz proposed an amendment to increase the number of parties involved in redistricting from two to four. The commission accepted the amendment for discussion at the next meeting.
The sixth meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held onMonday, March 23, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the Lynden City Hall Annex, 205 - 4th Street, Lynden, Washington.
Agenda
Call to Order
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Public Session Members of the public will have 3 minutes to address the Commission on any subject. Each speaker should state his or her name for the record. To submit handouts, please provide one for each commissioner and two for staff and the record.
Approval of Minutes for March 9, 2015
Old Business: Discussion and Possible Vote on Proposed Charter Amendments for Voters at the next General ElectionThe Commission will take a mid-meeting break if necessary. Proposed Amendment 4 from Jon Mutchler: Shall the Charter Preamble be amended to affirm the diversity of our citizens? Proposed Amendment 8 from Jon Mutchler: Shall the Charter be amended to provide voter education concerning county officials’ election titles by requiring ballots to refer to the Assessor as the “Property Assessor” and the Auditor as the “Auditor and Elections Officer”? Proposed Amendment 9 from Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for the election of Councilmembers countywide and by districts from which the candidate was nominated? Proposed Amendment 10 from 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? Proposed Amendment 11 from Cliff Langley: Shall the Charter be amended to require that the Councilmember At-Large reside in unincorporated Whatcom County and be elected by unincorporated county voters?
Old Business: Commission-Approved Charter Amendments The Commission voted to forward these proposed amendments to Whatcom County voters. They are not scheduled for discussion at tonight’s meeting. However, any commissioner may move to reconsider these amendments during any meeting. Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of council members within the council district from which the candidate was nominated? Proposed Amendment 2 from 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? Proposed Amendment 3 from 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? Proposed Amendment 5 from Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum? Proposed Amendment 6 from Ken Bell: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County Councilmembers?
New BusinessPending Amendment from John Mutchler: Shall the Charter be amended to include a new section to require compliance with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act and impose a civil penalty on violations of the Act?
Adjourn
The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 13, 2015 at the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham, Washington
