Saturday, Feb. 4 at San Juan Grange from 8am to 2pm (with a break for lunch). Public input is welcomed at 8:30 and at noon.
Reviewing the County Charter is a complex task, and the Charter Review Commissioners have jumped in with both feet – to the dismay of some. At the Jan. 28 meeting on Lopez Island, the process itself undertaken by the inter-island group of elected commissioners was the focus of much of the day-long meeting.
The 16 CRC members considered:
- A motion as put forth by Janice Peterson (San Juan) to re-consider the introduction of issues by motion, followed by discussion. The group decided upon this process last month;
- A motion by Moana Kutsche (Orcas)that would require discussion at two meetings or more of any motion brought forward.
- A motion by Barbara Thomas (Lopez)to release a combined statement regarding the CRC’s progress;
- A presentation by former County Commissioner Tom Cowan of Lopez Island, who served from 1982 to 1994( story on Cowan’s presentation to be posted Saturday, Feb. 4);
- A presentation from CRC member Madrona Murphy (Lopez) on the lessons learned regarding the function of charter government from the chipsealing of Watmough Head Road on Lopez Island;
- Two motions by Bob Levinson (San Juan) regarding a code of ethics for elected officials and vetting of all grant requests by the Council were presented and failed.
Watmough Head Road
In Madrona Murphy’s presentation on Watmough Head road, she reported that she heard many of the same things from the people involved:
- Lopez people felt there was a lack of representation on the council. Due to a lack of county-wide voting, they felt they had no constituency among other council members;
- It was unclear who had the ultimate responsibility for policy and decisions – the council or the administrator. “There was the impression of the buck getting passed;”
- There was a lack of transparency because the county road plan didn’t indicate what projects were to be completed in a given year;
- There was concern about the ability of elected officials to have oversight about budget and environmental questions;
- There was confusion about the mini-initiative and petition processes;
- The “split vote” issue: the Charter requires four votes to do anything; a split vote doesn’t give any indication of what legislators want to do to continue an action; nor does it give direction to the county administrator. Consideration of a “firewall” between the council and administrators and the role and power of administrator are very concerning to Lopez residents, Murphy said.
Charter Review Outreach
Janice Peterson questioned whether the CRC should, “at this point put out in press releases to the public that the Charter Review Commission … has made these decisions.
“My feeling, is that it’s better to put out these issues to the public, saying they’re under consideration….We are giving weight to things that are tentative; it looks to the community that this is what we’re going to recommend. Even though these decisions may be revisited, these critical motions gather more weight. This motion process has lead to ill-considered, unsubstantiated decisions.”
Barbara Thomas proposed a motion to authorize the outreach committee to release a statement crafted by members Murphy and Peterson. Thomas said, “The public knows we’ve made motions and I’m not going to couch that in other terms that discount what we’ve done.
“I am in favor of a fuller explanation of why we’re here, what we’ve done, what we’re doing and what we will be doing the next several months. It’s high time we get something out… [the public] elected us to do some work and are pleased to see we are working,” Thomas said.
Ralph Gutschmidt (Orcas) said he was in favor of moving the process “as quickly as we can.
“We have a procedure; motions have been made and discussed, they’ll go to the drafting committee and we’ll review. To disrupt our process is not appropriate; the voters will have last word.”
Bill Appel (Waldron) said, “The committee’s heard, and has a sense of, what we’ve had to say.” He supported Thomas’ motion.
Janice Peterson spoke against Thomas’ motion, saying her understanding of the CRC’s role was “to review the charter and make recommendations.”
The CRC decided to refer Thomas’ motion back to the outreach committee “to make sure that the first official statement speaks to what we’re doing in a current way, according to the will of the membership for review and rewording.”
Chair Gordy Peterson (San Juan) called for a brief meeting of the outreach committee following the day’s CRC meeting to decide how to proceed. (A statement was released by the CRC on Monday, Jan. 30).
Committee Reports
During the Committee report section of the meeting, the group heard from Barbara Thomas who reviewed a list of state counties with populations up to 45,000, both with and without administrators, to see how they operated.
Discussion Process
Janice Peterson introduced a motion in opposition to the CRC’s practice of conducting discussion by first introducing a motion. “This not only discourages the minority voice, it can completely silence it,” Peterson said. “It is important to think and research and ponder ideas.”
Bob Gamble (Orcas) said, “We have decided at least in a preliminary sense on things we agree on, but we’re going to have a lot of stuff we don’t agree on. This has helped form something amorphously. We have to bring up a cogently worded motion in order to have some discussion.
“I was amazed at our first meeting and the unanimity for keeping the charter, county-wide elections and a three-member commission. We should stay with the initial process and keep on going. We still have a lot of work to do.”
The group supported its original decision to proceed using Roberts Rules of Order, with motions preceding discussion.
Later, Moana Kutsche introduced a motion that spoke to some of the concerns with the rapid pace at which the CRC has made its preliminary recommendations. Her motion called for all motions to be discussed at at least two CRC meetings, with no vote other than a straw vote to get a sense of the meeting before the second discussion. The motion specified its effect would not be retroactive.
Kutsche said, “My concern is, if you’re not present at meeting when the motion first comes up, in fairness you’ll know coming in that you’ll be talking about [the motion], and members of the public who see the agenda can plan to attend or contact the CRC. It allows for each of our views and those of the public being considered.”
Many spoke in support of the intent of the motion, but stated that the issues could be addressed without amending their rules. Richard Ward of Lopez said he felt “a personal sense of urgency; you’re either ahead or behind, there’s no such thing as being on time.” He noted that the committee to draft the recommendations should start in April.
The motion failed in a vote, and Chair Gordy Peterson commented, “Going too fast been a big concern of mine, and I have heard from many on the CRC expressing same. I want to respect the minority, do the will of the majority, and give everyone a fair shot.
“We have to draft findings for all decision-making — a time-consuming process — we need to conserve some time for those meetings.”
Bob Levinson introduced two motions that failed following discussion:
- to prepare an ethics policy for county officials and employees to follow;
- to adopt a rule for the county that all grant requests be submitted first to the county council
Levinson explained the second motion; “Grants incur obligations by county government… It is important for containing costs that the council knows about obligations before hand.”
At tomorrow’s meeting to be held at the San Juan Island Grange, county department heads will weigh in on the prospect of combining departments, which County Administrator Pete Rose has said may be necessary.
For more information about the Charter Review process and documents, go to https://sanjuanco.com/committees/charterreview/default.aspx
