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. The first speakers were invited guests -- the elected officials, which tonight comprised County Executive Jack Louws, and County Auditor, Debbie Adelstein.
Executive Louws spoke generally of the charter and the charter review process, and answered general questions about various aspects of how the executive branch felt things were going under the charter. There were some questions about separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. Also discussed was how to determine if county government was operating under the terms of the charter, and who would decide if the charter was being followed or not. Executive Louws said that function would probably fall to the county prosecutor, who fills a role similar to the US Supreme Court, in cases like this.
Auditor Debbie Adelstein came prepared with several observations about places where the charter and actual practice may have diverged in the Auditor's office, and suggestions for charter modifications or policy changes that would address this. Adelstein also suggested some other changes that would improve ballots and elections.
After the elected officials were finished, the floor was opened to general citizen input (at 00:45:15 in the audio clip, below). Several speakers presented proposals for charter amendments.
- Delaine Clizbe: Fair Voting by District
- Kris Halterman: Cash Balance Limitations
- Karl Uppiano: Freedom by Default
(We will publish the text from other speaker notes and handouts for discussion on this website when they become available.)
The rest of the meeting was primarily concerned with where to hold the meetings out in the county (the ones not held in Bellingham). There were several motions to try to determine how to prioritize meeting venues and constituencies. There was some concern about spending so much time not addressing actual charter issues, but attempts to streamline the process seemed to go nowhere. Finally, the commission agreed to meet at four different locations in the county, and then to hold supplemental meetings as needed to meet with other constituencies. Joe Elenbaas noted that in previous reviews, the remote meetings often were not well attended, the implication being that the time might be better spent working on something else.
A couple of amendments, including voting by district (from public input and the "Elephant in the room") and ballot short description definitions (auditor's suggestions) were placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
There was a motion to change the number of readings and votes required to pass an amendment. The objective was to increase the chances for public hearing and discussion. Since this would require a rules change, involving a 2/3 majority vote, this motion failed. However, it was noted that amendments already require a final vote before they can be placed on the ballot.
Here is the audio from the full meeting:
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 pm.
No comments:
Post a Comment