From the San Juan County Auditor’s Office
The San Juan County Canvassing Board earlier this week heard a challenge to the candidacy of Laura Jo Severson for Charter Review Commissioner. The Board unanimously determined that the candidate does meet eligibility requirements for the office, and dismissed the challenge to her candidacy.
The Charter, adopted by the voters in 2005, requires that five years after adoption the County Council call for election of a Charter Review Commission. Candidates for Charter Review Commissioner filed as candidates in June; the commission will be elected in the upcoming general election in November. The purpose of the CRC is to determine the adequacy and suitability of the Charter to the needs of the County. It may propose amendments to the Charter, which would be voted on at the next general election.
The Charter requires that candidates for Charter Review Commission “must be registered voters who have been residents of the County for at least five (5) years preceding their election.” The challenge, submitted by Shari and Harold Harrison, alleged that Ms. Severson does not meet the five-year residency requirement.
The County Charter does not specify the method for resolving a challenge to a person’s five-year residency. There is a process set up in state law (RCW 29A.08.810-850) to review challenges to a voter’s registration, and the County Canvass Board agreed to follow that procedure to handle this challenge to Ms. Severson’s residency.
The Canvassing Board is statutorily comprised of the County Auditor, the County Prosecutor, and Chair of the County Council. At the request of Auditor Milene Henley and with the agreement of Council Chair Lovel Pratt, Deputy Prosecutor Jon Cain presided over the hearing. Testimony focused on what constitutes residency and when Ms. Severson became a resident of San Juan County.
The challengers have the option of appealing the decision to Superior Court.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Basically this decision says that any liveaboard can claim residency and benefits. Another liberal screwover by Lovel Pratt. Laura Jo (a teachers union official) wants to run your life.
As a liveaboard for over 9 years, the last 3 years here on Orcas, I resent the implication that we are not residents or part of the community. We live and work in the community, we purchase goods and services from members of the community, we pay rent which in turn is used to pay taxes to the community. We are no different than those that live in apartments or rent the house they live in. Would you say that apartment dwellers or house renters are not residents?
I am also an active member of the community and am not afraid of publicly stating my beliefs or opinions. I do not hide behind a made up pseudonym. If you want to take somebody to task publicly, at least use a real name.
If you believe somebody is not qualified for a job, or you are concerned about their political or professional positions and how it would affect their decision, take them to task on the specifics. A strawman makes a very poor tool in a debate.
The positions of the candidate and the challenger are posted online for one to read and judge for oneself. This has not much to do with liveaboards. “Liveaboards” are citizens who are entitled to vote, become candidates, and participate fully in the government. The question is, WHICH government–that is, WHERE is your liveaboard boat docked?
The candidate in question lived and worked full time for more than 19 years in Seattle, until mid-2009, by her own admission. After she sold her house, and before she moved here full-time, she leased a rental house, and then lived on her boat downsound for four or so years. Prior to 2009, she came here on some weekends, some holidays, and some part of 6-week summer breaks. Like many others, she built a home here that she used when she wasn’t working in Seattle. The underlying question was whether she physically resided here or there prior to 2009. (The County Board of Canvass opinion is also posted.)
Peg, You hit the nail on the head. The issue at hand isn’t whether the candidate lives on a boat or not. The issue is where has the candidate legally resided for the past 5 years.
What I took exception to, and why I responded to “Heidi Salami’s” posting, was the ad hominem attack on the candidate’s choice of habitat. If we allow one to belittle another because of their selection of habitat, we all, as a society, slide down a slippery slope of elitism. Instead of stating facts and pointing out the believed errors on the part of the Canvas Board as you have, the poster choose to belittle others who choose non-traditional habitats. I would hope that regardless of your view of the legitimacy of the candidate, this kind of an attack would not be tolerated.
Jim, yes, that was exactly my point. I think live-aboarding is wonderful, and wish I had a 42′ sailboat to live on! Well, maybe only in the summer–which, this year, seems to be July and early August. Don’t know that I have the fortitude for the “winter” (Sept-June) temps.