Monday, March 9, 2015 -- The Fifth Meeting of the Charter Review Commission

The fifth 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.

County prosecutor David S. McEachran attempted to address the question of what we do about situations where the county is not in compliance with the charter. McEachran and Commissioner Bell seemed to be talking at cross-purposes, and did not appear to resolve the issue. 

Sheriff Elfo and several other citizens spoke in opposition to Proposed Amendment 6: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County Council members, Executive, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor, and Sheriff?

Public comments included several about 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?

A couple of citizens spoke in favor of Amendment 7, indicating that it needed work, but that we really need a way to ensure fair and transparent processes to apply for grants and funding, as well as accountability for how the funds are used and distributed by these non-government organizations after they are funded.

Several others spoke in favor of 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?

In addition to favoring Amendment 1, at least two speakers suggested that some means be provided to prevent the Whatcom County Council from reverting representation by district this time (addressed by proposed amendments 3 and 10).

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? were discussed.

The commission discussed Proposed Amendment 4: Shall the Charter Preamble be amended to affirm the diversity of our citizens? but did not move that one forward.

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? was wordsmithed a bit to make it consistent with state law, and passed.

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? was discussed, and voted down. This may be brought back up again in a different form, to better address the original problem of fairness, transparency and accountability.

Proposed Amendment 6, about term limits was modified to affect only the county council, and not the Executive, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor, and Sheriff. The term limit was increased to three terms, and passed.

Here is the audio from the full meeting:

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.

Fifth Charter Review Commission Meeting March 9, 2015, 6:30 PM (Monday)

The fifth meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, March 9, 2015  at 6:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham, Washington.

The public session is your chance to weigh in on how Whatcom County government will affect your life and livelihood for the next ten years.

Agenda (Amended)

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.
   Presentation from Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney Dave McEachran
5. Approval of Minutes for February 23, 2015
6. Old Business: Discussion and Possible Vote on Proposed Charter Amendments for Voters at the next General Election (The Commission will take a mid-meeting break if necessary.)
   Proposed Amendment 2 from Joe Elenbaas: 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 from Ben Elenbaas: 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?
   Proposed Amendment 4 from Jon Mutchler: Shall the Charter Preamble be amended to affirm the diversity of our citizens?
   Proposed Amendment 6 from Ken Bell: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County Councilmembers, Executive, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor, and Sheriff?
   Proposed Amendment 7 from Yvonne Goldsmith: Shall the County Charter prohibit grants and expenditures to non-profit organizations unless the County is reimbursed by another organization or jurisdiction?
   Proposed Amendment 8 from Jon Mutchler: 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”?
   Proposed Amendment 9 from Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for the election of Councilmembers countywide and by districts from which the candidate was nominated?
   Proposed Amendment 10 from Chet Dow: 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?
   Proposed Amendment 11 from Cliff Langley: Shall the Charter be amended to require that the Councilmember At-Large reside in unincorporated Whatcom County and be elected by unincorporated county voters?
7. Old Business: Commission-Approved Charter Amendments
   The Commission voted to forward these proposed amendments to Whatcom County voters. They are not scheduled for discussion at tonight’s meeting. However, any commissioner may move to reconsider these amendments during any meeting.
   Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of council members within the council district from which the candidate was nominated?
   Proposed Amendment 5 from Todd Donovan: Shall the Charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum?
8. New Business
   Motion to begin Charter Review Commission meetings with prayer – Withdrawn from the agenda
9. Adjourn

The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, March 23, 2015 at the Lynden City Hall
Annex, 205 - 4th Street, Lynden

Monday, February 23, 2015 -- The Fourth Meeting of the Charter Review Commission

The third meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, February 9, 2015. This meeting was hosted by the Lummi Nation at the Lummi Admin Center.

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.

Whatcom County executive staff were on hand to answer questions about which non-profits have contracts or receive money from the county general fund, as requested by Cliff Langley and Barbara Ryan. It is a long list, and to prevent information overload, the commission asked for the top ten, or some other executive summary in a future report, rather than detail and classify every contract.

There were many people lined up to protest "amendment 7" as listed on the agenda. (We have posted articles about it, here and here.) Not all of the testimony was printed, but we will publish the text of the public testimony as (or if) it it becomes available. You can hear the entire testimony in the audio transcription, below.

Stoney Bird brought up some more about proportional voting, which invited some interesting discussion. Watch for developments.

There were a few testimonials for and against Equitable Representation by District.

The commission discussed and passed Representation by District, and deferred the rest of the amendments to future meetings. The reason for this is that the public testimony took up more time than anticipated. There was some discussion of whether the current districting and allocation of councilors could be modified to enhance the effectiveness (or attractiveness) of Representation by District. Note that passage does not guarantee that this amendment cannot be revisited. The modified commission rules make it possible for any commissioner to bring this up for more debate. 

Ben Elenbaas had to leave at 7:30, so the gavel was transferred to Joe Elenbaas.

Here is the audio from the full meeting:

 

Joe Elenbaas gaveled the meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.

Fourth Charter Review Commission Meeting February 23, 2015, 6:30 PM (Monday)

The fourth meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, February 23 at 6:30 PM in the Lummi Administration Center, 2665 Kwina Road (directions ... ).

This is the first "away" meeting for the commission. These away meetings are intended to help engage the local residents in the Charter Review process. The Lummi Administration Center is a very impressive building, and it should be worth the trip out there for that reason alone. But of course, the real reason for attending these meetings is to have a say in how your Whatcom County government will run for the next ten years. The public session is your chance to be heard. 

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 February 9, 2015
6. Old Business: Discussion and Possible Vote on Proposed Charter Amendments to Voters at the next General Election (The Commission will take a mid-meeting break if necessary.)
   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: 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?
   Proposed Amendment 4: Shall the Charter Preamble be amended affirm the diversity of our citizens?
   Proposed Amendment 5: Shall the Charter be amended to facilitate voting on initiative and referendum?
   Proposed Amendment 6: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County Councilmembers, Executive, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor, and Sheriff?
   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?
7. New Business
   Shall Charter Section 4.10 be amended to provide voter education concerning county officials’ election titles?
8. Adjourn

The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, March 9, 2015 at the Civic

Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham

Bellingham Herald Article Misleading on Proposed Amendment

We wrote about a proposed charter amendment that was made at the February 9 meeting. This amendment would curtail the County funding various non-profits around our county.

Ralph Schwartz from the Bellingham Herald was quick to write a headline grabbing article about the amendment.   With a title like " Whatcom government couldn't give to nonprofits under charter-review proposal", we can see why the citizens of Bellingham would be instantly enraged.  We wish that Ralph had included more details because there is much more to the story.

This charter amendment comes out of some happenings during the Whatcom County budget talks back in October, 2014.  The County Council had two meetings where the different departments in the County presented their budget requests.

On October 23, 2014 Ken Mann brings up that he had a meeting with the director of the food bank and he would like to give them more money to buy food.  A summary of the conversation is provided in the draft minutes from that day.  The discussion about the food bank begins on page 17.

The food bank was budgeted to receive $50,000 for service delivery.  Ken Mann wanted to increase the amount by $80,000 for the food bank to buy actual food.  He is immediately told by Dewey Dessler, county special projects manager,  that the County can not give the Food Bank money for actual food because that would be a gift to citizens and that is against the State Constitution. The problem is that the Food Bank does not have it's clients fill out any verification on what their income level is.  The County could give food to people who are poor and infirm. However, the Bellingham Food Bank doesn't ask them for that info so therefore, the County can not give them money for actual food.

In addition, to the transaction not being legal, Tawni Helms from Administrative Services Department,  affirmed to the Council that the food bank had not asked or applied for additional funds.

The rest of the conversation centered on how the County could get around the State Constitution and give the money to the food bank.  Ken Mann, Barbara Brenner and Pete Kremen were both insistent that the Executives office could find a work around.  You know, find a way to break the law, wink wink.

On October 27, 2014 the County Council then voted to send this extra money, that the food bank did not ask for, and is against the State Constitution, to the food bank for purchasing food.  Sam Crawford was the only one opposed.

So now you know the rest of the story.

Here is the audio from the Council meeting on this discussion:

Comment: In Support of Equitable Representation by District

The following comment was presented by Karl Uppiano, District 1, Ferndale, at the February 9 Charter Review Commission meeting.

Whatcom 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.

Proponents 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.

View source (PDF) ...

Proposed Amendment: Narrowing the Pay Differential Between the Council Members and the Executive

The following charter amendment was proposed by Roger Brown, at the February 9 Charter Review Commission meeting.

MEMO

February 9, 2015 

To: Whatcom County Charter Review Commission 

From: Roger Brown 

Re: Executive and Council Compensation 

Article 11, sections 3 through 5 of the Washington Constitution control the creation and governance of counties. The constitution allows for two forms of county government: the commission form and the home rule charter form. Of Washington's 39 counties, 33 "non-charter" counties operate under the commission form of government. According to the Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC), 

“The commission form is often referred to as the "plural executive" form of government. Under the commission form, the county governing body consists of a three-member board of commissioners, elected on a partisan basis, who serve as the county's legislative body and also perform executive functions. Counties with populations greater than 300,000 can increase the size of the commission from three to five members…  

Although there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for county commissioners to delegate any of their executive authority to a separately-appointed administrator, many of them have, to a limited degree, chosen to do so.”1 

The other six counties operate under home rule charters. Whatcom County is one of four Washington home rule charter counties governed by an elected council and a separately elected executive. The other three are Pierce, King and Snohomish counties. The charters of each of these four counties mandate distinct legislative and executive branches. The Whatcom County Charter states: 

“Article 1. Powers of the County
Section 1.50 Separation of Powers and Cooperation of Branches.
There shall be separation of powers into two branches of government: executive and legislative. Both branches are to dutifully fulfill their responsibilities and refrain from overextending their authority, as defined in this Charter…”2 

As noted, the commission form of government allocates equal power to each board member. The Council-Elected Executive form of government , however, requires careful partition of responsibilities and balancing of resources to ensure that each branch asserts only those authorities apportioned by law. Avoiding aggrandizement of power within the executive branch, where a single person directs the great majority of the County’s administrative apparatus, warrants particular attention. Setting appropriate compensation levels for the executive and legislative branches is a critically important element of this process. 

The Whatcom County Charter was approved in 1978. For the next 34 years, the County Council set salaries for all County officers. In 2011, the Council passed Ordinance 2011-026, which referred a Charter amendment to a vote of the people . The amendment provided for salaries to be set by an independent commission “ to eliminate the inherent conflict of an elected official setting his or her own potential future salary.”3 This amendment was approved and is now codified in the Charter as follows: 

“Section 6.100 Salaries of Elected Officials. 

The county council shall establish by ordinance and in accordance with law an independent ‘citizens’ commission on salaries for elected officials’ which shall fix the salaries for the county council, executive, assessor, auditor, prosecuting attorney, sheriff and treasurer. Salary commission members shall serve two year terms ending December 31, 2014 and every two years thereafter. Members of the salary commission shall serve without compensation, but may receive reimbursement for mileage to and from meetings and for other such expenses directly related to their service as provided by ordinance. 

The salary commission shall meet biennially and shall file the salary schedule with the county council and county auditor not later than May 1. The salary schedule shall become effective January 1 of the following calendar year and incorporated into the county budget without further action of the county council, county executive or salary commission...” (emphasis added). 

Hence, the unelected members of the Salary Commission set salaries based entirely on their own judgment - with no external policy constraints. This arrangement is admirable for independence but the inherent lack of accountability may not serve the public interest. The following table presents executive and legislative salaries for Whatcom County compared to the other three Council-Elected Executive governments. 

 

The column labeled “COUNCIL PCT OF EXEC PAY” shows council salary as a percentage of executive salary. This indicates that the council’s compensation, relative to that of the executive , is far lower in Whatcom County than in the other jurisdictions. 

The charters of King and Pierce counties specifically address the executive-legislative pay differential:

• King County: “…The county executive shall receive compensation at least one and one-half times the compensation paid to a councilman…” 4 Subject only to this limitation, the King County Council has authority to establish the compensation to be paid to all county officers and employees.
• Pierce County: “…Councilmembers shall be paid 60 percent of the Executive's compensation…”5 Pierce County does have a Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials. However it is an advisory body and does not make a final decision.6 

CONCLUSION

Compensation of the legislative branch in Whatcom County is extremely low relative to that of the executive branch, differing significantly in that respect from the other three counties using the Council-Elected Executive governance model. The reasons for this result are unclear, but in any case the disparity would seem to undermine the Council’s ability to function effectively as a separate and coequal branch of government. In effect, the current salary structure treats the Council as if its work can be accomplished on a part-time basis. I believe this premise is wrong, and that as a consequence many councilors are unable to give optimum attention and study to all the matters that come before them. The Charter Review Commission, whose members are elected and whose recommendations must be submitted for voter approval, should consider adopting policies to guide the Salary Commission. This seems especially appropriate in determining the executive and legislative pay differential, which affects the balance of power between these two branches. I have attached a proposed Charter amendment addressing this issue. It is based on the Pierce County document. cc Salary Commission 5 Pierce County Charter Section 2.20. 6 Snohomish County has a salary commission with powers that parallel those of the Whatcom County Salary Commission, but has produced results generally compatible with those for Pierce and King counties.4 

ATTACHMENT: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT

Section 6.100 Salaries of Elected Officials. 

The county council shall establish by ordinance and in accordance with law an independent “citizens’ commission on salaries for elected officials” which shall fix the salaries for the county council, executive, assessor, auditor, prosecuting attorney, sheriff and treasurer, provided that council members shall be paid 60 percent of the executive's compensation. Salary commission members shall serve two-year terms ending December 31, 2014 and every two years thereafter. Members of the salary commission shall serve without compensation, but may receive reimbursement for mileage to and from meetings and for other such expenses directly related to their service as provided by ordinance. 

The salary commission shall meet biennially and shall file the salary schedule with the county council and county auditor not later than May 1. The salary schedule shall become effective January 1 of the following calendar year and incorporated into the county budget without further action of the county council, county executive or salary commission. 

The salaries for the county council, executive, assessor, auditor, prosecuting attorney, sheriff and treasurer in effect on January 1, 2012 shall remain in effect until changed as provided herein. (Ord. 2011- 026 Exh. A)

View source (PDF) ...