By Colin Maycock
To administer or not, that is the question.
This November the voters of San Juan County will be asked to vote for changes to the Charter that governs the County. The provision to grant administrative or executive power back to the County Council is the most worrisome of the proposed changes and should be considered carefully before you cast your vote.
That power was removed from the Council when the Charter was adopted and for good reason. Under the old Board of County Commissioners system the Commissioners had the authority to direct (i.e. meddle with) County staff and their management and, unsurprisingly, the direction from the Commissioners was often politically or personally motivated, usually unethical, and often illegal which, from time to time, led directly to costly law suits that the County inevitably lost with the taxpayers left to bear the costs of the Commissioners rash decisions.
The target, or benefit, of the Commissioner’s direction to staff depended on the spectrum of favorability on which the matter stood. In some cases decisions were made, based not on equal or just application of the code but solely to serve the narrow purposes of the Commissioners.
Often the Commissioners used departments and staff as proxies in their own internecine rivalries and disagreements, with one commissioner demanding a specific result from staff on one day while another commissioner would demand an opposite and mutually exclusive result the following day. If the staff stood their ground and made the proper decision they were then vigorously targeted for termination. Needless to say this led to an institutional paralysis as staff sought BOCC approval for the most minor of administrative tasks and governance ground to a halt in SJC.
The explicit corruption of this type of meddling became so repugnant that an outcry from the community arose with the ultimate outcome being the adoption of the County Charter that added what was expected to be an independent and professional County Administrator responsible for the day to day operation of the County business leaving the responsibility of legislation to the Council.
The Union’s deepest concern is that once again County staff will be subject to the ever changing political and personal views of the Council. The County staff’s duty is to carry out the public’s business without regard to political affiliation or socio-economic status; something staff endeavors to do despite the occasional controversy.
For the time being the public and the County staff has an Administrator to stand between them and what ultimately could be (we say could, but we truly mean the inevitable) pressure and coercion to inequitably apply the county code.
The past interference of the BOCC into the day to day operation of the County was an unmitigated disaster for the public, and a progenitor of a hostile work place for County staff.
It was failure then, it would be a failure this time, and we STRONGLY recommend that you think deeply about the implications that accompany returning administrative powers to the County Council and vote NO on that amendment.
Colin Maycock is President of Local 1849, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
One reason to vote for the Charter changes. Hogwash.
Peg…please elaborate on your comment…the intent of your comment escapes me…
Thanks,
Fred
Peg,
Not sure what you are saying. Sounds like you are in favor of the charter. If so, would you talk about why. And it sounds like you think Colin’s letter is “hogwash” – would you detail why.
Thanks!
Jay
I repeat my earlier comments to Janice Peterson regarding the proposition to the County charter: I, too, agree that the first two propositions are regressive in focus, intent and effect. These were the primary principles that the new Charter revised.
Proposition 1 actually distances the elected official, their proportional representation and their accountability from those they serve. Proposition 2 recreates the inherent conflict of interest that previously existed by combining legislative responsibilities with administrative responsibilities (just imagine the U.S. Congress running the country!). And, Proposition 3 is also unnecessary as you have detailed. All meetings of elected officials and their appointive bodies are to be announced or noticed and open to the public, as has already been legally determined.
I encourage voters to reject the three propositions, and encourage a clearly defined chief executive role for a County Manager/Administrator
I think there needs to be some checks and balances on CD&P and Public Works, based on what I have witnessed regarding permitting and Grant Monies projects in Eastsound – which has allowed major commercial development and much destruction of what little remains of Eastsound Swale – with little to no follow-up maintenance or monitoring, and no enforcement.
Our Charter specifically details the importance of protecting Eastsound Swale, yet CD&P has repeatedly failed to use or abide by our Eastsound SubArea Plan protective regulations when granting permits in Eastsound. Why is this? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.
IF Eastsound SubArea Plan gets incorporated into the Unified Development Code (chapter 18), I have little hope that CD&P will do any better at “finding” it or upholding its environmental regulations for Eastsound Swale.
So, I disagree with Mr. Maycock and think there needs to be some kind of “meddling” to be sure that permitters are doing right by…
continued …
continued…
So, I disagree with Mr. Maycock and think there needs to be some kind of “meddling” to be sure that permittors are doing right by Eastsound Critical Areas. How that gets addressed remains to be seen, but there needs to be some environmental regulations obeyed again, especially regarding any new commercial development in or near Eastsound Swale. We can’t even keep our existing retail buildings full; why keep allowing more to be built? Why?
Sorry for the short post–it is just so frustrating to try to address such badly written, ill-thought-out Isuppose that a slightly more detailed response to the letter from the Local AFSCME Union Steward is this: first, stating that prior Commissioners engaged in “usually unethical, often illegal” activity under the longstanding, pre-charter, model is irresponsible and unsupported statement. Documented examples? Second, the letter clearly reflects the attitude of many of our high-paid “staff”–that “direction” by County Commissioners or Council is “meddling.” Staff apparently believes that STAFF–not the citizens, not the Council–is paramount, and that STAFF is the final arbiter of all things. This leads to staff applying for grants to do things that no citizens want and no higher authority reviewed or approved–such as the beautiful Friday Harbor “rain garden” or the even more lovely Eastsound Swamp.
The County union asks us to retain the 6-member council and “administrator,” but if anything, our experience under that model should cause us to run as fast as possible in the opposite direction. Rather than bringing a grownup into the room to tamp down overenthusiastic staff, the administrator model provided us with a whole new group of employees and more bureaucratic style (press releases! budgets the size of telephone books with photos and colorful headings and literary quotes!)and it was particularly hostile to citizen inquiry and complaints. It looked at spending growth as inevitable, even as it became clear that revenue was dropping rapidly. It opposed government transparency. Despite its supposed basis for existing–to free up council members from day-to-day decision, it seemed to have resulted in certain council members participating full-time in day to day management–such as the CAO group that met behind the scenes for almost two years and controlled CAO actions.
After the past five years, it should be clear to us that the models used in government (3/5/6 members) have far less to do with how well the system operates than the PEOPLE we elect to fill those slots. I think we all agree that we should keep the referendum and initiative parts of the Charter; Prop. 3 (open meetings) is easy–it’s what the law requires, so we should vote to include it in the charter. That leaves the membership question–3 or 6 (I personally wish that the CRC had explored the 5-member model more). The 3-member model scares me–it undermines recognition of the differences among the islands and within the islands–look at the Land Bank early renewal vote, or last week’s “Public Safety” tax results. It gave us the biggest rise in spending we’ve seen in the recent era, with the Ranker/Myrh/Lichter trio. It provides Lopez Island a disproportionate say in County government by dictating that one of the three members be from Lopez, even though Lopez is much smaller.