Monday, June 22, 2015 -- Proceedings of The Twelfth Meeting of the Charter Review Commission

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 was withdrawn by general consent.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.