||| FROM TONY GHAZEL |||
I served on the 2021 SJC Charter Review Commission (CRC) and I applaud the SJC Council for remaining true to the language in the charter. We don’t believe that the 2021 CRC has any authority to transmit additional amendments to be placed on any subsequent ballots after its year in office, which was 2021 – last year. The current charter is clear on when the term of office is and when the final recommendations must happen. On July 13, 2021 – last year- the CRC presented the six recommendations that made it on the 2021 ballot. The SJC Council, in their July 20 , 2021, meeting, voted to receive them and forward to the elections office, as prescribed by the charter. These four “new” recommendations timing doesn’t abide by the language in the current charter.
The questions that lingered during the CRC deliberations, were: When does the term of office end, and does “final” refer to when the CRC membership decides what final means or to the individual final proposal when presented to the county council to forward to the elections department.
I and others on the 2021 CRC and some of the members of previous CRCs with whom we talked, believe that the term of office ends when the CRC submits to the council, one or more proposals in final form and ready to be placed on the next November ballot of their year in office. In our view that would be SJC July 13, 2021, meeting for the November 2021 election.
This is not about the contents of the four proposals; they may be supportable by the voters, but it is about the correct way to follow the current charter (SJC Constitution) as some have said, and the correct procedure in a democracy to place ballot propositions. The public and the SJC Council can still garner support and present these to the voters in any November election that they choose.
So, this angst, in my humble opinion, that is directed at the SJC Council is misplaced and ought to be directed elsewhere.
Below please find some references to consider.
Section 9.30 – Charter Amendment – General Provisions
Charter amendments may be proposed by the CRC, the County Council or by
the public.
Section 9.20 – Election Procedures and Period of Office
(1) The County Council shall cause an election of a CRC in 2020 and at least every ten (10) years thereafter provided that the CRC election is held in an even numbered year.
(e) The term of office shall be the shorter of one (1) year or when final recommendations are submitted to the Legislative Body [County Council] for referral to the voters.
Below is the action of the SJC Council in their July 20, 2021 meeting, where they voted in accordance with sub-section (e) above on all six final 2021 CRC proposals.
COUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES – Page 3
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
101 Prosecuting Attorney Randall Gaylord also addressed the Proposals and answered
Council’s questions.
102 Commissioner Tom Starr presented the minority report.
103 After discussion, the Council took the following actions:
104
105 1. MOVED by Mr. Stephens, seconded by Ms. Wolf that the Council deliver to the
106 Auditor the amendment concerning the Climate and Environment Commission for
107 the November 2021 Ballot. ALL AYES; MOTION CARRIED.
108
109 2. MOVED by Ms. Wolf, seconded by Mr. Stephens to deliver to the Auditor the
110 second proposition on the subject of Initiatives and Referendums for the
111 November 2021 Ballot. ALL AYES; MOTION CARRIED.
112
113 3. MOVED by Mr. Stephens, seconded by Ms. Wolf to deliver to the Auditor the
114 Introduction to the Charter, the Acknowledgement, the Preamble and Declaration
115 of Community Values for the November 2021 Ballot. ALL AYES; MOTION
116 CARRIED.
117
118 4. MOVED by Ms. Wolf, seconded by Mr. Stephens to deliver to the Auditor
119 proposition four concerning Non-Discrimination in the Exercise of County
120 Powers and Performances of its Duties to be placed on the November 2021 Ballot.
121 ALL AYES; MOTION CARRIED.
122
123 5. MOVED by Mr. Stephens, seconded by Ms. Wolf to deliver to the Auditor the
124 proposition concerning term limits for Council Members to be placed on the
125 November 2021 Ballot. ALL AYES; MOTION CARRIED.
126
127 6. MOVED by Ms. Wolf, seconded by Mr. Stephens to forward the sixth proposition
128 regarding Justice, Equity and Inclusion Commission to the Auditor for the
129 November 2021 Ballot. ALL AYES; MOTION CARRIED.
Section 9.32 – Amendments by the Charter Review Commission
The CRC may propose amendments to the Charter by filing such proposed amendments with the County Council who shall submit the amendment to the voters at the next November general election at least ninety (90) days after the filing and registration of the amendments
Section 9.33 – Amendments by the Public
The public may propose amendments to the Charter by:
(a) Registering with the County Auditor an initiative petition bearing the signatures of registered voters of the County equal in number to at least fifteen (15) percent of the number of votes cast in the County in the last gubernatorial election.
(b) Signatures shall be registered not more than one hundred twenty (120) days following filing of the petition with the County Auditor, who shall submit the amendments to the voters.
(i) The one hundred and twenty (120) day period shall begin upon receipt of official notification to petitioner(s) by the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office either by certified mail or messenger.
(ii) If the last day for collecting signatures falls on a weekend or legal holiday, then the one hundred and twenty (120) day period shall extend to the end of the next business day.
Section 9.34 – Amendments by the County Council
(1) The County Council may propose amendments to the Charter by enacting an ordinance to submit a proposed amendment to the voters at the next November general election occurring at least ninety (90) days after enactment.
(2) The County Council by unanimous vote of the entire County Council may effect amendments to the language of the Charter where the passage of time has rendered language moot or obsolete. Such changes shall be made by ordinance, and have a public hearing
Did the CRC continue to meet after July 13th, 2021? Did the CRC vote on the four amendments that were submitted in December 2021? I did not see language that required amendments to be submitted for the same election year that the CRC is in office. I also did not see language that restricted the number of submissions. If I have missed said language, please correct me.
Tenar,
Thank you for the questions.
Yes the CRC met after July.
Yes the CRC voted on the new four amendments proposals.
From Section 9.32 “… filing such proposed amendments with the County Council who shall submit the amendment to the voters at the next November general election…” sounds to me like the same year when in office.
I don’t know what you mean by “submissions” but there is no limit on proposed amendments as long as they happen during the term of office per Section 9.2(1)(e)
Tony and his fellow seat-mates who believed the second filing was inconsistent with the direction of the charter may well be correct. Kevin and his seat-mates who believe that their action was consistent and allowable within the charter may also correct. And there-in lies the conundrum.
One intriguing piece of this issue is that the Charter Review Commission is actually attempting to clarify the intent the charter language in one their proposals to the citizens of the county that have now been dismissed by Council.
It is undeniable that the language of the existing Charter is ambiguous. So ambiguous, that within the process of the Charter Review Commissions work they received a finding by the PA’s office that it was entirely “legal” to break the amendment submissions into 2 submittals. Following the forwarding of the first set of recommendations they then received, also from the PA’s office that breaking the submissions into 2 submittals was NOT legal. Based on this conflicting advice, the Charter Review Commission made a partially-split decision to continue to move forward. Their discussions of this are all available for review by the public and viewable online. Their discussion, both affirmative and dissenting, are open, public and were accessible to the residents of San Juan County.
And so, on or about the end of November, the Charter Review Commission submitted 4 additional amendments and several recommendations to the County Council. Those recommendations have been sitting in the hands of the County Council since that time.
That brings us to Tuesday August 2nd 2022. Approximately 8 full months since the Council was handed what was the “final” work product of the CRC. In those 8 months, there has been nothing to indicate that the County Council was not intending to forward the proposals on to the ballot. There has been no public discussion or hearing to discuss the validity of the action by the CRC in continuing their work beyond their initial submittal, which we all had the opportunity to vote on. In fact, the executive session held to discuss the issue was done with no notation of purpose, other than reference to a statutory exception within the applicable RCW. There was no discussion item on an agenda, no public comment, no indication of a decision to be made… just an executive session to discuss litigation or potential litigation.
While I believe that this is clearly a violation of the OPMA, in order to prove that, I would be required to sue San Juan County to prove that point, and endeavor which neither I, nor my bank account have the stomach for. But that is not really the crux of this issue. The crux of this issue is that Council not only had ample time to address and discuss this topic in a way that was far more transparent to the community, and they also had a VERY SIMPLE way to fix ALL of the concerns.
As stated, the disagreement over the legitimacy of the second filing by the Charter Review Commission has merits on both sides of the issue. Council may well be legally correct to NOT forward on the charter amendments FROM the CRC. But, knowing that the CRC acted as they did only due to conflicting advice from their County provided legal counsel, the Council has a duty to recognize and act on what is best for the citizens of our County. As they stated in their hasty, 11th hour motion setting aside the recommendations, the Council specifically identifies that the issue with the CRC proposal is one of “procedure”, not one of “substance”. I emphasize the FROM above, because the simple, elegant and completely legal solution was for the Council to simply draft their own amendments to the Charter and forward them FROM the Council to the ballot. The Charter recognizes this as a completely valid path to Charter ammendment. This very simple act would have not only substantially conformed to the desires of the CRC, but would have eliminated a potential legal challenge from those who believed that the CRC amendment procedure was, indeed, improper.
Ultimately, had the County Council employed the processes and procedures that mandate a wide application of open, transparent and participatory government, it is likely that those of us in the community that seek to support and advise the functions of our community would have stepped up to the challenge. We would have encouraged the Council to problem solve and to engage in a process that was more “helpful” than “hurtful”. Instead, what happened was foot dragging, head burying and ultimately questionable, backroom discussion and decision making.
It seems almost certain that the San Juan County Council has now all but invited a long, painfully expensive and completely avoidable legal battle… ironically fulfilling their Executive Session prophecy of “potential litigation”. Perhaps it was foreshadowing, but I prefer another word… incompetence.
Tony,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
When I read the entire Section 9.32:
“The CRC may propose amendments to the Charter by filing such proposed amendments with the County Council who shall submit the amendment to the voters at the next November general election at least ninety (90) days after the filing and registration of the amendments.“
I interpret it as restricting the date the amendments go on the ballot, not the date that the amendments must be filed and registered. In other words, the amendments can be filed and registered at anytime the CRC is in office but when they end up on the ballot depends on when they were filed and registered.
If the amendments necessarily need to be filed for the election the same year the CRC is in office, why does the CRC have the option to remain in office after said election (as stated in Section 9.20(e))?
Justin covered my question regarding the number of submissions. I apologize for my lack of clarity. I do not see any language in the charter that states the CRC must submit amendment recommendations to the Council all at once. I’m curious to see how the PA’s office ultimately concluded that submitting amendment recommendations to the Council at multiple points in time is not legal.
Justin,
I really appreciate your research, assessment, and write-up. I also applaud the solution you would have presented that gives a workaround the conflicting actions from the PAs office. I hope to see your write-up beyond the comment section.
Thank you for your service Tony. Your reading of the Charter and the statement about procedure is exactly the point; “This is not about the contents of the four proposals; they may be supportable by the voters, but it is about the correct way to follow the current charter (SJC Constitution) as some have said, and the correct procedure in a democracy to place ballot propositions. The public and the SJC Council can still garner support and present these to the voters in any November election that they choose.”
The rhetoric of being denied a “democratic right to vote” by the former chair is misleading and dangerous. It perpetuates an us versus them mentality and does nothing to support the proposals themselves.
Michele, thank you. I thought that I was done with the CRC last August and yet here we are.
Tenar,
Thank you for taking the time to review the sections in the SJC Charter.
As far as your interpretation of Section 9.32, may I suggest otherwise, that if the CRC wants items on the NEXT November ballot as the charter stipulates, then the CRC has to abide by the SJC elections calendar and the (90) day requirement and present anytime prior. Also to allow for time for the SJC Council to receive, act by resolution to forward to the elections department. That is why the July 13th date was chosen.
Section 9.20(1)(e) sets the point of when the term of the CRC ends. It ends either the day the proposals are presented to the council in final form OR, on December 31 of the same year. So, the CRC does not have the “option to remain in office”.