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.
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.
After a short break, the commission resumed the agenda with old business.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment