Guest Opinion | Become informed, join me in rejecting specific Charter Review propositions

||| FROM TONY P. GHAZEL, 2021 CRC COMMISSIONER |||

Are we not tired of statements in another’s opinion in theOrcasonian, such as “dis-information,” emanating from all sides of the political spectrum when fair minded voters respectfully disagree on subjects that will affect our lives one way or another. The action of the Charter Review Commissionaires (CRC) in proposing these amendments: #1 New introduction to the charter, #3 Climate and Environmental Commission, #4 Concerning Initiatives and Referendums, #5 Concerning non-discrimination and #6 Concerning Justice, Equity, and Inclusion Commission, failed to meet the test found in the charter about the duties of the CRC: “determine the adequacy and suitability of the County.”

As a CRC we were way out of bounds as some felt that the current charter is a “how to manual” and that we needed to add a lot of procedure rather than a document that governs the structure of county government. The charter gives the council authority to do all that is found in these proposals, and they have. If they are not rejected, these propositions will create un-necessary layers in county government and bureaucracies that will have to be funded by moving funds from needed services such as mental health, code enforcement, affordable housing, and emergency services. Because when you put it in the charter (constitution) IT HAS TO BE FUNDED.

We are not King, Pierce or Snohomish counties from whose charters much of the language you find here is derived.

The current County Council and previous councils have already established time tested procedures, passed resolutions, and created commissions that deal with exactly those issues of environment, non-discrimination and more. The County Personnel Dept already has procedures and follow state and federal laws for hiring and recruiting county personnel. The Prosecuting Attorney already has powers to prosecute offenders and the judicial system will exercise their authority as needed.

If you have lived in this county for more than five days, you realize that we have no tolerance for environmental and other abuses – try to apply for any permit and “cut corners.” We moved here, as a collective, because we love the beauty, and we care about each other’s wellbeing, and we will not support businesses and institutions that are intolerant or discriminatory. And we make it known if that happens.

So, the answer is not more words in the charter but rather be aware that we, the people, will make improvements happen as needed and as our communities grow. And we can expect and demand that our elected officials live up to their oath. CRC Supporters of these propositions and the words in them may lead you to believe that we have many insurmountable issues, and the charter amendments will solve them. Really!

Proposition #5 Concerning non-discrimination, goes even further than what is already in county resolution 31-2020, by suggesting that every project bidder will not be awarded a project unless they have documentation demonstrating that they abide by the proposition’s content. This will place many small businesses in the county that employ hundreds of hardworking folks, on notice to not bid on any projects because you will be rejected if you don’t check all the “non-discrimination” boxes. What a nightmare for these small companies and their employees. Large multinational companies “may be exempt” because we “need them” as one CRC member stated during our many debates on this item.

Proposition #4 Concerning Initiatives and Referendums, we have no issues with the part that reduces the number of valid signatures required to place an item on the ballot but the part of completely deleting the need to show from where funds will be used if a new initiative is passed by the voters. Imagine if an initiative is presented to the voters to buy a new ferry to be used solely by San Juan County and it passes. Where will the funds come from to pay for this ferry? We feel it is irresponsible to put something on the ballot without including where the provisions to fund this item. This could bankrupt the county.

The Charter Review Commission is not limited to convene once every 10 years, as others have suggested in another’s opinion letter in theOrcasonian. The San Juan County Council “shall call” for an election of commissioners in any even numbered year to serve in the following odd-numbered year – and – at least once every ten years; there is a big difference. So, let’s reject these propositions as the San Juan County Council and all the elected and appointed department leaders are well positioned to act accordingly.  If we find that current and future elected officials deviating from the standards that we already have, we can hold them accountable or we can convene a new CRC in 2023 to help with remedies.

I am part of a group of CRC Commissioners who also spent hundreds of hours and read and prepared countless documents during these meetings of the past nine months and have a respectful but a different view of these propositions. We prepared a report which we presented to the county council, to document our concerns for all six proportions; the report is found here for easier navigation between documents – please read it and get better informed and when you do, please join me and others in rejecting Propositions #1, #3, #4, #5 and #6: https://orcasboard.org

Or found here on the San Juan County website: https://www.sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/24220/CRC-Minority-Report-several-topics—Commrs-Ghazel-Starr-Dossett?bidId=