||| FROM SHARON ABREU |||
I served on the SJC Charter Review Commission last year.
It has come to my attention that the San Juan County Council has failed to carry out its responsibility to submit the four proposed Charter Amendments slated to appear on the SJC ballot this November.
The procedure was that the CRC sends the Charter Amendments to the County Council and they pass it along to the County Auditor. They have not done that, and the deadline for these Charter Amendments (Propositions 1-4) to be submitted to the Elections Office is 4:30 p.m. today.
The fact that the CRC had to go through the County Council supposedly was simply a formality. But today we have learned from the County Auditor that if she does not receive those from the County Council today, they will not be on the ballot this November.
The County Council’s failure to fulfill its responsibility here threatens to deny thousands of voters here in San Juan County the right to vote to have Ranked Choice Voting in our Charter, and to consider three additional proposed Charter Amendments as well.
I personally have spent at least a couple hundred hours working on this Ranked Choice Voting resolution, with a lot of support from people in our community.
So I am publicly urging Cindy Wolf, Christine Minney and Jamie Stephens to fulfill their responsibility and submit the four proposed Charter Amendments put forward to appear on the San Juan County ballot this November before 4:30 p.m. TODAY.
I just got home from being gone all day – what can we do at this late juncture? If this is true, I find Council’s lack of meeting responsibilities to the voters not only shocking, but their failure to assure that we have a voice on these amendments is appalling. Since we are supposed to vote on the Charter review before regulations can be made, does this set these 4 amendments back a whole other year? Good heavens! By that time it will be almost time to do a completely new charter review! Please tell me that someone got through to them and that they did this by the deadline.
If they indeed failed to submit the charter amendments today – and they had plenty of time to do so – that is TRULY irresponsible! A lot of people worked very hard to get it to the Council in time. Now what?
Therein lies the conundrum, Madie. I think the next move is ours (pending confirmation of the failure to meet the deadline).
Please read my comment to Kevin Ranker’s letter. Yep. they indeed decided NOT to move forward with the 4 amendments – Elections called me back at 6 pm. Their excuse was, “doesn’t conform to county standards.” They waited NINE MONTHS to tell us that?! I’m ready for action and I hope the citizenry is, too.
Well, it’s official. The San Juan County Council has killed the 4 Charter Amendments the elected San Juan Charter Review Commission put forward for the November 2022 ballot. Three people elected by the voters of this county just denied the entire county of voters their opportunity to vote on these important measures. And it was not in their authority to do so.
Council said the chair of the crc did not conform with the procedural requirements of the San Juan County Charter when he submitted the proposed amendments to council to be placed on the November ballot so they voted not to forward them to the auditor for placement.
Darlene, I don’t believe that’s true. And it’s telling that the County Council waited until the last possible minute to cast that vote, after not forwarding the Charter Amendments to the County Auditor and just sitting on them for months, until the deadline to submit the Charter Amendments had passed.
Sharon, I am of the mind that we need to act on this, so count me in. I have been pretty careful to hang back because dealing with the County has been an ongoing thorn in my side, but this is too important NOT to act because they just denied all registered to vote county citizens that right. I’m with you in thinking they do not have the authority to do what they did. How they did it should alarm and piss-off the constituency who they are NOT representing.
These recent events signal a blatant disregard for the citizenry the San Juan County Council and those who have been elected to represent us are not addressing the issues they are tasked to attend. I am noticing the raising of red flags and the ire of the people these Council members are supposed to “represent”, too
Those who were elected to work on the Charter Amendments dedicated hours and hours and hours of time and attention to submit the necessary documentation to Council. This paperwork’s has been in the hands of Council for months – if these elected officials had identified issues to be addressed, timing matters.
Council… Your blatant disregard and ‘last minute maneuvers ‘ have resulted in crushing those who did the ‘heavy lifting’ and you have disregarded the electorate’s RIGHT to VOTE on these proposed items. Incredibly bad form!!!
And you wonder why the good people of San Juan County are fed up with the lack of inspired leadership.
How many VACANT positions are there for Advisory Committees?
Who would want to assume the thankless and futile efforts to spend volunteer time on these committees and then be treated so badly. Such disrespect.
Do any is us really wonder why there is so much litigation brought against San Juan County? How else can WeThePeople get things done?
From the fiasco we’ve witnessed these past weeks with the Land Bank and SJPT, to this evening’s final act of total disregard, I do hope that Council members are ready to feel the heat… get ready for the increased attention, attendance and oversight that is coming your way.
Democracy Dies in Darkness so we must shine the light brightly, Citizens All. The Future of the Islands will be DECIDED in the Islands.
Our “esteemed” Council-members have betrayed our trust. This is not a small thing. The hardwork and Heart that the CRC put into this work has been spat upon by our county council members, and to whomever they feel more responsibility to. A very ugly state of affairs, and very blatant also. Shame on the three of you and your cohorts. Spirit Eagle.
I find this lapse inexcusable, especially the Amendment on Ranked-Choice voting, which I strongly support.
Are there provisions for a recall election in our existing county charter?
Write your elected councilors:
cindyw@sanjuanco.com – Orcas
christinem@sanjuanco.com – San Juan
jamies@sanjuanco.com – Lopez
Can someone please help me with what I am missing? What procedural requirements?
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.
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SanJuanCounty/#!/SanJuanCountyCH.html
I was only stating what the council chair stated after coming out of executive session. Not that I agreed with the statement or have any idea what procedural requirements weren’t met. They had two executive sessions and passed motions on both. This motion they passed to not submit the proposed amendments to the auditor was after this session. EXECUTIVE SESSION: To discuss with legal counsel litigation or potential litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). Sounds to me like they are expecting litigation over this. If my interpretation of what I heard at the county council meeting us wrong then I apologize for any false info here but that was my interpretation of it.
Tenar Hall-
Had they held the discussion of this issue in open session, as is mandated by law, we would have an understanding of “why” they believe their was a procedural error.
That discussion happened behind closed doors, in violation of the OPMA. They can discuss the litigation in darkness when it happens but the merits of this discussion are not the subject of any present or perceived litigation.
With that said, I think it’s safe to say that there will be litigation, and likely on multiple fronts.
This is becoming, more and more, “a mystery wrapped in an enigma” as council’s executive sessions seem to be increasingly the way to do business. What is, by ordinance, supposed to be a rubber stamp pass-through is blocked, at the eleventh hour, by an unexplained “procedural” objection. If the justification for taking this action behind closed doors is that the County may get sued, and since the County is US, couldn’t our elected representatives on the council provide a little more explanation of their decision to shut down our elected representatives on the CRC?
Tenar Hall,
There are more than that section relating to procedure that may be what the council looked at. It could be Section 9.20 (1) (e), and Section 9.34 for example.
Justin,
Executive session could also be legal advise pertaining to procedure that is in question for this issue, and that. Legal advise is permitted in executive session.
Tony,
With all due respect, I fully disagree. Council adjourned to Executive Session per RCW42.30.110 (i) :
“To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.”
While the discussion of litigation and possible litigation is, in fact, allowable, the discussion and reasoning surrounding their determination of there being a procedural issue with the CRC submission to the county is not. Simply discussing legal advice surrounding a normal function of government is not an allowable exemption from the OPMA.
In their assessment of this very issue, the Attorney General of WA states the following:
“This provision is, in practice, often used as a justification for executive sessions, particularly because “potential litigation” is susceptible to a broad reading. Indeed, many things a public agency does will subject it to the possibility of a lawsuit. However, a court will construe “potential litigation” or any other grounds for an executive session narrowly and in favor of requiring open meetings. Miller v. City of Tacoma (1999). To avoid a reading of this subsection that may be broader than that intended by the Legislature — and to avoid a suit alleging a violation of the OPMA — it is important for a governing body to look at the facts of each situation in the context of all the requirements of this subsection.”
I would encourage anyone looking to form their own opinion to read the Atty General’s fact page on this topic found here:
https://www.atg.wa.gov/Open-Government-Resource-Manual/Chapter-3
Significantly included in the Miller opinion (which is the guiding precedent for Exec. Session) is the following text “…once in executive session the council was not immunized from the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act. For the council to comply with the act it was required to limit its action in executive session to that authorized by the relevant exception. This accords with the mandate for liberal interpretation of the act contained in RCW 42.30.910 and the consequent narrow construction of exceptions to the general rule.”
I encourage everyone interested in this issue to watch the County Council meeting in question (https://media.avcaptureall.cloud/meeting/679bc2ea-fde3-43cb-b948-651091fb5542), specifically the last 7 mins, and decide if they can honestly believe that the scope and focus of the Executive Session was limited to only the narrow points of discussion allowed. If so, then the motion that was passed to not present the CRC amendments for placement on the ballot was done so with ZERO discussion amongst the members of the Council and provided the public with ZERO understanding for the basis of the decision.
Justin – Have you considered running for county council? I always appreciate your sensible approach to the various issues that come up and I would be glad to have you representing us.
The CRC itself understood and discussed that it was handing of to the county council a risk of litigation. This prospect existed no matter what the county council would have decided to do or not do. As I understand the present situation, the surmise of probable litigation has bloomed into overt threat or actual litigation. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to assume, however many people choose to assume, that the anticipation of litigation for purposes of the Open Public Meetings Act was in bad faith.
The resulting frustration and disappointment are understandable, particularly for Sharon who really worked hard on RCV. But whatever process the council might have chosen (and the optics of this are certainly lousy), I believe the result would have been the same even had the voters had been given an opportunity to express their displeasure..
Here is an unofficial transcript of the seven or so minutes going into executive session and coming out :
Here is an unofficial transcript:
03:41:37.003 –> 03:41:42.008
Minney: Uh Council will now be going into executive session to discuss with legal counsel,litigation or potential litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110.1(i) …. which would mean a time to come out of executive and close session would be approximately 3:30 at which time action may be taken.
03:48:50.006 –> 03:48:57.006
Okay. Uh Good evening and welcome back to the SAn juan county council regular meeting for Tuesday october 2nd 2022. Uh We did have a couple of executive sessions and one closed session and coming out of that. We are taking action on to the first on July 13th 2021. The Charter review Commission chair submitted to us six proposed amendments to the SAn juan county charter. We voted to forward these proposed amendments to the auditor for placement on the november 2021 ballot. On December 14, 2021. The Charter Review Commission Chair submitted four ballot measures and eight county council recommendations along with a resolution requesting the ballot measures be put on the November 2022 ballot.
Stephens: With that in mind, I move that the second batch of proposed amendments does not conform with the procedural requirements of the SAn juan County Charter and that we will not be taking action to send these proposals to the auditor for placement on the november ballot.
Wolf: Second,
Minney: it has been moved and seconded that the second batch of proposed amendments do not conform with the procedural requirements of the SAn
juan county charter and that we will not be taking action to send these proposals to the auditor for placement on the november ballot. Any further discussion,
Wolf: Madam Chair. I would like to be clear that I support ranked choice voting and I very much look forward to the time when it is a possibility in the state of Washington. But I do agree with council’s conclusion regarding procedure.
Minney: Thank you. In which case I will take the vote all in favor Aye. motion is carried 3-0.