Guest Opinion: Concerns Regarding Charter Review Propositions

I read Larry Hendel’s explanation of the Charter Amendments with interest, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.  I was also a member of the Charter Review Commission, one of four who either voted against the CRC majority’s amendments or abstained.  Actually, I should use present tense because the CRC has not formally disbanded.  I believe the first two propositions (going back to the old 3-legislator Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) model, and returning all administrative power to the 3-member council who would appoint a “county manager” with unspecified responsibilities) are poorly conceived, badly supported ideas that will move the County backwards rather than forwards.

Here are a few of the concerns shared by many San Juan County residents about the CRC’s proposals.

• The CRC made the most fundamental and far-reaching decisions only one week into our deliberations.  There were no interviews conducted, no research, no data gathered, and virtually nothing to support their “working model” to which the majority attached itself for the next six months.
• Having made their decisions, the CRC invited 7 former BOCC members to speak with us, all of whom enthusiastically approved of the old ways of doing things.  This was not a surprise.
• Voters will note that all three signers on the ballot proposition #1 to return to three council members are former BOCC members.
• The Freeholders, singly or as a group, were never invited to address the CRC despite requests to hear the opinions of the citizens who wrote our Home Rule Charter.
• In my opinion, the Charter review was not a review and the people of San Juan County are the worse for it.  The opportunity to explore positive changes was lost.  The CRC majority refused to discuss options such as recommending 5 council members and exploring ways to make 3 districts equal.
• In the opinion of some, including me, the Charter review was “hijacked” and the resulting amendments appropriately labeled as a plan to “gut” the Charter.  Larry’s note about the Charter being “thoroughly reviewed” is incredible.
• Proposition #1 will give the island with 1/6^th of the population 1/3^rd of the influence.  This is unfair in the opinion of many County residents, including residents on Lopez.  The majority of County residents voted in 2005 to get rid of this model.  Before the Charter was approved there were concerns about constitutional challenges. These concerns have grown in the years since and have been voiced by council members and citizens who spoke to the CRC.
• Proposition #2 would restore yet another element of the old BOCC model the voters soundly rejected in 2005.  All administrative authority would return to the 3-member Council to then be delegated to a manager.  The particulars of the manager’s job description were avoided by the CRC majority.
• Should the voters approve Proposition #1, the three council members elected on November 6^th would lose their seats just a few months later, as would the other 3 council members whose terms are not scheduled to expire until 2014.
• Should the voters approve Proposition #1, the taxpayers would have to pay for a new primary in February ($30-$35,000) and a special election in April (another $30-$35,000).  Candidates themselves could be forced to spend $50,000 or more to run campaigns – first in the district elections going on right now, and then in two more county-wide elections.
• The CRC majority was appropriately concerned about transparency.  So was the Prosecuting Attorney when he presented a legal opinion to the County Council on April 26^th to say that the subcommittee meetings should be noticed and open to the public.  The Council immediately complied.  There is no reason for Proposition #3 to appear on the ballot.
• The CRC, as an elected public body, falls under the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act just like the County Council does.  Larry comments on the “hundreds of hours outside of meetings” spent by the CRC.  How many of those meetings were noticed and open to the public?
• With the departure of Pete Rose, the 6-member council now has the opportunity for the first time, to appoint the County Administrator.  With the departure from the Council in 2010 of the last member who also held office as a BOCC member, the implementation of our Charter began.
• The Council has cleaned up a lot of the issues left as the negative legacy of the BOCC and has moved forward on many new initiatives.  We have survived some very difficult economic times and the Council leadership has done well, at least according to statements made by The County Auditor, the former County Administrator, members of the public, and representatives of the media.

Propositions 1 and 2 will mean: an entire duly elected County Council removed from office, all administrative power given to three new council members, elimination of the six council districts the County has just approved with redistricting that made them equal, and all of the consequential expense and uncertainty.  Read the CRC “Findings.”  Watch Gordy Petersen’s “Dog and Pony Show.”  (That is not my phrase; it’s his).  Ask yourself exactly what problems the CRC even claims to solve.

Larry Hendel’s letter correctly uses different labels for the Charter Review Commission and a new group that appears to have been founded by members of the CRC majority but he intersperses the CRC majority’s viewpoints with those of the new group, and he invites donations.

As mentioned earlier, the CRC has not been formally dissolved.  It should be.