Proposed Amendment: Discourage Rent-Seeking Special Interests

The following charter amendment was presented by Carole Perry, at the February 9 Charter Review Commission meeting.

Carole Perry read the following email from Whatcom County Council Member Sam Crawford into the public record:

As the County Council is finalizing the 2015/2016 county budget, I thought of a charter amendment (below) that might save the taxpayers quite a bit of money... money that necessarily comes out of our general fund property tax revenues because no other county fund is eligible for public "charitable expenditures". The county's "general fund" is the most vulnerable and greatest-need fund because it's what pays for the county's essential services such as the criminal justice system, sheriff, basic services, etc. 

Over the years we've put money into everything from the Whatcom Symphony to Food Banks to Historical Societies to Festivals to Chambers of Commerce to whatever. Often it is a matter of behind the scenes lobbying (as just occurred for one group who was successful in obtaining $80,000 yesterday, and that's in addition to a bunch of other organization contributions already in the proposed budget) 

Whatcom County Charter Section 6.74 Charitable Appropriations  

The Whatcom County Executive and the Whatcom County Councilmembers shall not distribute county funds via grants or expenditures, whether budgeted or non-budgeted, to charitable, educational, civic, homeowner, neighborhood, arts, trade, business, religious or scientific non-profit organizations or any other similar types of community organizations/groups not mentioned herein, unless the grant or expenditure is directly reimbursed by community, private, state or federal grant agencies for the identical purposes for which the agency/government grant is provided. 

On the other hand, I guess another possibility (if you like the idea of the county taxpayers collectively contributing to some of these various charities) would be to not prohibit these expenditures, but somehow require more public notice and review (not sure how you'd do that through the charter). 

Sam Crawford 

Whatcom County Council Member 

360 676-6690 

Emails by Councilmembers are considered public documents and subject to disclosure.

View source (PDF) ... 

Proposed Amendment: Stricter Residency Requirements for Political Candidates

The following charter amendment was proposed by Delaine Clizbe, District 1, at the February 9 Charter Review Commission meeting.

Thank you all for beginning the discussion about amending the Charter to allow for equal representation on our County Council. In addition to that change, I would also like you to consider adding some residency requirements for candidates running for County Council and Executive positions in our County.

As I'm sure you are all aware, last year one candidate for the 42nd district senate race was criticized for changing addresses at the last minute in order to qualify as a candidate in the district. State law requires only that a candidate is registered to vote in their district at the time they declare their candidacy. In my opinion this leaves a wide opening for address hopping.

RCW 29A.24.075 The name of a candidate for an office shall not appear on a ballot for that office unless, except for judge of the superior court and as provided in RCW 3.50.057, the candidate is, at the time the candidate's declaration of candidacy is filed, properly registered to vote in the geographic area represented by the office. 

Other Counties have added additional residency requirements for County Council Candidates:

Pierce County Charter Section 4.3 In addition, all Council members shall be residents and registered voters of their Council districts for at least one year immediately prior to filing for the Council position, and shall maintain residency in the Council district during the term for which the Councilmember was elected

Snohomish County Charter Section 4.3 Each county official holding an elective office shall be, at the time of appointment or election and at all times while holding office, a citizen of the United States over the age of twenty-one, a county resident for the three years immediately prior to filing for or appointment to office, and a registered voter of the county. No person shall be eligible to be elected to more than three consecutive full terms for any office. For the purposes of this section, different positions on the county council shall not be considered different offices. 

I am suggesting a simple change to Section 2.11 by adding the following statement: All Council members shall be residents and registered voters of their Council Districts for at least one year immediately prior to filing for the Council position ... And to Section 3.21, The County Executive shall be a resident and a registered voter in Whatcom County for at least one year immediately prior to filing for office.

When I moved to Bellingham to attend Western I had to pay out of state tuition until I had lived here for a year. In addition, we require voters to have their voters registration done one month before they can vote. So I don't think it is too much to ask that our County Council and Executive have lived in our community for a period of time before they can run for office. Thank you for considering this proposal.

View source (PDF) ...

Monday, February 9, 2015 -- The Third Meeting of the Charter Review Commission

The third meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, February 9, 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. We will publish the text of the public testimony when it becomes available.

• Dorothy Booth (Birch Bay Chamber of Commerce meeting invitation)
• Stoney Bird (proposal for proportional representation amendment)
• Karl Uppiano (supporting equitable representation by district amendment)
• Bob Burr (encouraging non-partisanship and democracy)
• Gene Goldsmith (opposing diversity amendment to the preamble; proposal for term limits amendment)
• Roger Brown (proposal for amendment narrowing the pay differential between council members and the executive)
• Larry Kellerman (sp?) (supporting district-only voting amendment)
• Carole Perry (proposal for amendment requiring the general fund to be used for essential government services, not charity or non-profit benefits)
• Delaine Clizbe (proposal for amendment requiring stricter residency requirements for political candidates)
• Debbie Adelstein (follow-up information from her presentation last time)

The commission wrapped up deliberation on meeting locations, although they may revisit this again as needed. There were some conflicts with meeting location availability in Sudden Valley, so the clerk was instructed to see if some alternative locations are available. 

A considerable amount of discussion was devoted to determining how to balance the seemingly conflicting objectives of collecting citizen input and having sufficient time to debate charter amendments. A proposal to hold off debate on all charter amendments until near the end of the meeting series (in June) was rejected on a 2/3 roll call vote, required because such a rule change would restrict the commission's options. Finally, a compromise measure that would allow amendments to be debated as they are received, with a rule change that allows any commissioner to move to reconsider any amendment after a vote (usually only allowed for members of the prevailing vote) passed unanimously on a 2/3 roll call vote.

Thereafter, a number of amendments were read into the record, moved and seconded for consideration as old business in the upcoming meetings. 

Here is the audio from the full meeting:

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:40 pm. 

Third Charter Review Commission Meeting February 9, 2015, 6:30 PM (Monday)

The third meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, February 9 at 6:30 PM in the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial St., Bellingham (across from the library).

Agenda 

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. 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.
5. Approval of Minutes for January 26, 2015
6. Discuss and Approve Regular and Special Meeting Schedule and Location(s) - Continued from January 26, 2015
7. Discussion and Possible Vote to Amend the Rules of Order Discuss and vote on the process for scheduling proposed Charter amendments on the Commission agenda. (The Commission will take a mid-meeting break if necessary.)
8. Discussion and Possible Vote on Submitting Proposed Charter Amendments to Voters at the next General Election 
   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?
   Proposed Amendment #2: 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: Expand the preamble to affirm the diversity of our citizens. 
   Proposed Amendment #4: Shall the charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum?
9. Other Business - Discuss and approve agenda items for the next Commission meeting.
10. Adjourn

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 23, 2015 at the Lummi Administration Building, 2665 Kwina Road, Bellingham.

Amendment Text (PDF)

Be sure and show up to show your support for (or opposition to) the proposed amendments, and make your concerns heard. The commission cannot represent you if they don't know what your feelings are. If you speak in public session, your opinions will be read into the official public record.

Proposed Amendment: Cash Balance Limitations

The following charter amendment was proposed by Kris Halterman, Whatcom County, district 1, at the January 26 Charter Review Commission Meeting.

I would like the Charter Review Commission to consider amending Article 5, Section 5.30 Initiative – Limitations:

At present the Initiative process does not address the ability of voter approved initiatives to limit the amount of revenue accrued in the funds that are earmarked for the purpose of the voter approved initiatives. The results of this are ‘Cash Balance Funds’ which are accumulated beyond the purpose of the tax payer’s intent. When these initiatives were approved, it is with the public trust that the revenue collected will be used expressly for the stated purpose of that initiative.

Currently the County collects, through taxation and fees, an unlimited amount into the fund created by the initiative. And, the County Council has legislative authority to move money from one fund to another by majority vote of the Council.

I would like the Charter Review Commission to consider amending Article 5, Section 5.30 Initiative – Limitations, and an addition to Article 6 Financial Administration, to read:

Article 5: Section 5.30 Initiative – Limitations.

No initiative proposal requiring the expenditure of additional funds for an existing activity or of any funds for a new activity or purpose shall be filed unless provisions are specifically made therein for new or additional sources of revenue which may thereby be required.

And, all voter approved initiatives which authorize the collection of taxes, or fees upon County property(s) for additional sources of revenue, shall include a maximum, or ceiling, of accumulated revenue to be held in a restricted fund. 

And, these taxes and/or fees which have been placed into a ‘restricted fund’ are for the sole ‘stated’ purpose of the initiative approved by the public.

And, no taxes or fees collected for an approved initiative by the people and placed into a ‘restricted fund,’ shall be subject, by County Council legislative action, to be transferred to the County general fund, or any other existing fund, or a newly created fund, without voter approval at the next general election. 

Unless, in the case of a fiscal emergency, if called by both the County Council and the County Executive at a public meeting, such a transfer could be approved by a 2/3rds vote of the Council.

Article 6: Financial Administration, Section 6.65

And, all current ‘reserved, restricted , and/or cash funds,” of Whatcom County shall suspend the collection of taxes and fees once it has accumulated more than 150% of the revenue needed for the stated and intended purpose of the fund.

Supporting documents: 

Balance Sheet (Excel Spreadsheet)
Cash Balances by Fund (PDF)

Proposed Amendment: Fair Voting by District

The following charter amendment was proposed by Delaine Clizbe, Whatcom County, district 1, at the January 26 Charter Review Commission Meeting.

I would like the Commission to consider amending Section 2.13 of the Charter concerning how our County Council is elected.

I think this amendment is needed because it offers individual districts the opportunity to elect the representative who will advocate for the specific needs of their district, as well as, the County.

We are the only County with a Council/Executive structure to elect our Council Council by a county wide vote. King, Pierce, and Snohomish elect their Council Council by district. The City of Seattle also recently voted to elect their City Council by district instead of city wide. So it seems the trend is going in the direction of elected representatives representing smaller more manageable areas.

Here is the wording from the other 3 counties that have the same County Council/Executive structure that we do.

King County: The metropolitan county council shall consist of nine members. The county shall be divided into nine districts, and one council member shall be nominated and elected by the voters of each district.

Pierce County: The County shall be divided into seven districts, and one Council Member shall be nominated and elected by the voters of each district

Snohomish County: The county council shall consist of five members nominated and elected from districts.

My suggestion is to change the wording of section 2.13 as follows:

The qualified voters of the entire county each district shall vote upon each the council member position in their district at the November general election. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes for each position shall be elected.

Going along with that suggested change, I would like the Commission to consider amending Section 8.20.

Charter amendments may be proposed by the Commission, the County Council or by the public. However, the County Council may not propose an amendment that alters or negates an amendment proposed by the Commission or the public and approved by the voters. Any proposed Charter amendment ...

This change is needed to ensure that the County Council does not override changes that the citizens of Whatcom County have asked for.

Proposed Amendment: Freedom by Default

The following charter amendment was proposed by Karl Uppiano of Ferndale, district 3, at the January 26 Charter Review Commission Meeting.

Background

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, derives its just power from the people, and not the reverse! However, there is an openly spoken sentiment in the halls of Whatcom County Government that proclaims, “If it isn't permitted, then it isn’t permitted”. Meaning that if you have not obtained a permit to do something, then you do not have permission to do it. This is the antithesis of what it means to live in a free country, where the people are at liberty to pursue happiness and a livelihood, subject to just a few well known, well understood and easily justified restrictions.

This is not only theoretical. The language in question is embodied in the Whatcom County zoning ordinances, and I believe the Whatcom County Charter is the appropriate place to avert this oppressive disposition.

Recommendation

I propose adding language to the Whatcom County Charter, Section 1.11, to the effect,

unless there is a specific law prohibiting a specific activity, citizens retain the right to act on their property at will.

This is formally similar to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.