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 was withdrawn by general consent.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.

Twelfth Charter Review Commission Meeting Scheduled for June 22, 2015, 6:30 PM (Monday)

The twelfth meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, June 22, 2015, 6:30 PM in the Civic Center Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham.

Click here to see the agenda for the meeting.

The commission is definitely winding down. New business has them reviewing draft ballot titles, and they'll be selecting which amendments go on the ballot very soon now. 

Monday, June 8, 2015 -- Proceedings of The Eleventh Meeting of the Charter Review Commission

The eleventh meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, June 8, 2015, in the East Whatcom Regional Resource Center, Maple Falls.

Vice-chairman Joe Elenbaas called the meeting to order at approximately 6:40 pm.

After the flag salute (to an image on Richard May's laptop computer) and roll call, a new item on the agenda, commissioner comments, were heard.

Commissioner Mackiewicz clarified the nomenclature surrounding 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? The commissioner pointed out that the text of the amendment colloquially referred to as "district only voting" actually specifies a hybrid model, in which the voters of each district would get to vote for two representatives from their district, and one at large.

Then the floor was opened to public comments. Proposed Amendment 1 received the most attention from the public. The remarks were mostly opposed, and the talking points were consistent with the messaging from previous calls for "all hands on deck" from the progressive community. It appears the amendment 1 proponents didn't get the memo this time, so it was pretty one-sided. 

Most of the audience left during the recess that followed the open session period. Ben Elenbaas observed with regret, the fact that the hostile witnesses read and believe the negative coverage by various groups and individuals, and the newspaper, show up for the open session, and then leave without observing first-hand what actually transpires in the meetings. 

Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Ryan seconded, that the commission reconsider Proposed Amendment 1. The motion failed, 7 to 8, and would have required a 2/3 majority to pass. 

Commissioner Bell moved to reconsider Proposed Amendment 6, from Ken Bell: Shall the Charter be amended to apply term limits to the County councilmembers? to change the term limit from thee terms to two. The motion passed to reconsider, but commissioner Bell's subsequent motion to change the council term limits failed. 

For new business, Commissioner Bell moved, and it was seconded, that the commission add an amendment that would include the County Executive Officer in the term limit discussion. 

Commissioner Bell moved, and it was seconded, for new business, to discuss proportional voting such as the type proposed by Stoney Bird.

Commissioner Mutchler moved, and it was seconded, for new business, to discuss an amendment for giving the county executive a line item veto of specific budged items, while giving the county council the ability to override the veto. 

New business will be discussed at the next meeting. 

Chairman Elenbaas expressed concern that we are fast approaching the August deadline for putting amendments on the ballot, and so he invited informal discussion of proportional voting with County Assessor Debbie Adelstein present, to explain how such a scheme would be implemented in practice.

Ms. Adelstein responded to questions from the commission, and described the current process. She expressed doubts about whether the equipment we currently use could handle it. This might give rise to extra costs. Also, this would require two ballots, since only Whatcom County elections would be proportional. All the other ones would remain the same. This might also create confusion among the voters. There might also be state or federal approval and certification difficulties. Compatibility with proposed state requirements for uniform equipment could be a problem. A number of other complexities, trade-offs and possible mitigations were discussed.

A few other issues were discussed, including a public document request by Sandra Robson, for commissioners to turn over all emails regarding commission business (including commissioner's private accounts). Commissioners also briefly discussed an article that was published in the Bellingham Herald attacking the commission for an amendment that they had already considered and rejected. Several commissioners wondered at this time, how this was news. Finally, Jill Nixon announced that the County Council is looking for volunteers to write the pro and con statements about the proposed charter amendments for the November ballot. 

Here is the audio from the full meeting:

Ben Elenbaas adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:20 pm.

Eleventh Charter Review Commission Meeting Scheduled for June 8, 2015, 6:30 PM (Monday)

The eleventh meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, June 8, 2015, 6:30 PM in East Whatcom Regional Resource Center, 8251 Kendall Road, Maple Falls.

Click here to see the agenda for the meeting.

The agenda is fairly light this time, but the commission may start polishing or revisiting some of the amendments.

Monday, May 18, 2015 -- Proceedings of The Tenth Meeting of the Charter Review Commission

The tenth meeting of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission was held on Monday, May 18, 2015.

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.

After a short break, the commission resumed the agenda with old business. 

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. 

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.

Proposed Amendment 1 -- Representation by District

Guest Editorial by Karl Uppiano

Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of councilmembers within the council district from which the candidate was nominated? 

Citizens need to know that the Charter Review Commission cannot force this amendment down anyone's throat. If it makes it onto the ballot, the voters must approve it in the November election in order for it to take effect. In which case, we can expect a vigorous campaign season, and lots of public discussion. Precisely the kind of discussion we ought to be having, in fact. One has to wonder why anyone would want to deny voters a chance to weigh in on this proposal.

There have been some alternatives put forth, mainly concerning the re-districting of Whatcom County into more districts. This is worth considering, and the commission is discussing it. However, the main concern is that this alternative proposal, if two similar amendments appear on the ballot at the same time, would be confusing, with the additional and significant complexity of redistricting; it would probably be a bridge too far for most voters. In fact, some cynics consider this nothing more than a poison pill, that would split the vote, and effectively torpedo the original proposal.

There seems to be a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread by factions on both sides the issue. Progressives fear that representation by district will favor conservatives. Conservatives fear that at-large representation will favor progressives and environmentalists. This isn't necessarily so, however. In fact, one of the main proponents of at-large representation from the last time we flip-flopped, was a conservative from District One, who realized he probably didn't have a snowball's chance of winning a race in his district. 

The fact is, it is hard to predict which faction will be favored in either election model. We have some history from both models, and so far, we haven't had a conservative majority on the council in recent memory, either way. It is hard to imagine a safe, pro-coal majority (as if it were the only issue). 

Would you want Blaine, Lynden or Ferndale citizens electing Bellingham's mayor? Or vice-versa? Why then, would you want them electing representation for your council district? 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 representation by district gives us two councilors per district, and one at-large, which in fact, does cover everyone -- by district! We all have the same access to representation, and save for the one at-large seat, we don't get to select the representation of another district. Our representatives would represent us as a proportion of the county population. Councilors and the citizens would have a closer relationship, and would be elected from among our neighbors.

With the exception of the already designated 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 anyone who wants 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, litter, 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.

Tenth Charter Review Commission Meeting Scheduled for May 18, 2015, 6:30 PM (Monday)

The tenth meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, May 18, 2015, 6:30 PM in The Firs Conference Center, 4605 Cable Street, Bellingham.

Here is the agenda for the meeting. 

The Anti-Coal environmental community has been called out once again to speak out against Proposed Amendment 1 from Joe Elenbaas: Shall the Charter be amended to provide for election of councilmembers within the council district from which the candidate was nominated? If you have a viewpoint on this issue, you should plan to attend. It is important that both sides are heard.

This meeting was moved up a week, because Monday, May 25 is Memorial Day. It is also an "away" meeting, at The Firs Conference Center.