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.
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 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.
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.
Here is the audio from the full meeting:
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:50 p.m.
I have a few observations about some of the testimony, that I would like to discuss. Of course, there is no opportunity for rebuttal, although I suppose a person could take notes and wait to be last in line, and then go down the list, point by point. Maybe I'll do that sometime.
ReplyDeleteOpponents to council representation by district want to elect every council member, as if that is somehow more fair than electing the people from their district to represent them. I don't want the first district, or the second district electing my representatives. I am not down with that. We might as well let Idaho and Montana elect our senators and congressmen.
A couple of people called Ben Elenbaas "uncivil" for reading Mr. Petryni's email in its entirety. Somebody call the Waambulance! I have seen political theater on both sides the aisle, and I think knowing who is posturing how is a GoodThing(tm). I actually think it's corruption when a politically active, taxpayer funded, "non profit" special interest group attempts to use my resources to influence local politics. Good on Ben for calling that out!
One person said that representation by district would result in the coal interests winning. That is by no means a given. But let's say it's true, for the sake of argument. Should we change the way we vote simply because people are afraid that the result won't be to their liking? Districts 2 and 3 can't beg, borrow or steal representation on the county council. But it isn't the coal interest, it's the farming interest that is being suppressed. That's a lot like gerrymandering.
Speaking of gerrymandering, there was a lot of talk about how the current three districts are gerrymandered, because Bellingham is divided up into three parts. I do not believe that is the result of gerrymandering. The real reason is that Bellingham has most of the population, and so to keep the number of voters in each district as equal as possible, each district has to dip into Bellingham. There is a proposed amendment on the docket which would address redistricting to divide the county up along different regional lines. But understand that redistricting will always be very controversial, and there are some serious technical hurdles to overcome. Be careful what you wish for.
District 2 and 3 can beg borrow or steal representation any time they like, by doing exactly what district 1 does, SHOW UP and vote. There are precisely the same number of voters in each district. Talk about call the waaaambulance. It is not Bellingham's fault if D2 and D3 can't be bothered to vote. But this whole argument is false anyway, because Sam Crawford won every single time he ran, and Knutzen beat Laurie Caskey Shreiber, and Kershner beat McShane and Tony Larson beat Jean Melious etc etc etc . When D2 and D3 are on the most popular side of issues, they win just fine, and in fact outvoted Dan McShane with Kathy Kershner.
DeleteIt isn't quite as simple as just showing up. The demographics of each district makes a big difference. A person who campaigns, and appeals to the rural element of any district, has a much harder time winning against someone who campaigns, and appeals to a denser urban population. This is mitigated somewhat by allowing candidates to focus on their own district when campaigning. And the cost, time and effort is 1/3 as much. And it's more environmentally friendly.
DeleteWhatcom 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.
ReplyDeleteProponents of at-large representation claim that the Whatcom County Council should represent everyone. That’s absolutely true. But unless my arithmetic fails me, equitable representation by district gives us two councilors per district, and one at-large, which in fact, covers everyone. Councilors and the citizens would have a closer relationship, and more likely to be neighbors.
With the exception of the 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 commissioners who want 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, 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.
I gave this testimony in open session a couple of weeks ago:
ReplyDeleteThere is an amendment proposal on the docket that is all about diversity.
It is Amendment 1: Representation by District.
Diversity is about way more than superficialities like how much melanin you have in your skin, or even your sexual identity or orientation, or your cultural ties. Diversity is in our hearts and souls.
• Real diversity is about the difference between people who prefer bag bans vs. those who wonder out loud whether this problem could have been solved with more freedom, instead of less.
• Real diversity is about the difference between people who think growing and packing marijuana is way cool dude, vs. those who think growing and packing actual food may be a greater social good.
• Real diversity is about the difference between people who live in town, who want to preserve farm land vs. people who live on farms, who want to preserve farm life.
That is why I prefer representation by district. It gives citizens the right to elect people who can represent first-hand our local needs and preferences.
Case in point: How many of you were aware that Ferndale and Point Roberts share a critical concern about radio interference?
If you campaigned in the third district when you ran for a seat on this commission, you would have gotten an earful when you visited Point Roberts. It would definitely be on your radar.
If you had to campaign in the entire county, you might not even have had time to visit Point Roberts. This might not even be a blip on your radar.
By the way, Point Roberts feels a bit disenfranchised. That could be less of a problem if they had a couple of direct reps on the council.