||| FROM B. SADIE BAILEY |||
I wrote a letter to Council on May 3, in reaction to the potential removal of Steve Smith from the Planning Commission (PC). Here’s what I’ve learned since then. We don’t have all the facts. We oughtn’t have a hearing without them all. This will take time. We should know the truth about things before drawing foregone conclusions. Postponement would give Council and Staff time to consult with Legal and draft and enact policy and protocol for behavior and disciplinary actions if needed. I see that we need to back further than April’s meetings to understand the full trajectory of the last two years.
On the same day of Steve’s hearing, there’s also a hearing on PC’s recommended greatly-increased vacation rental cap numbers that shocked and angered so many of us. It would be wise to postpone Steve’s hearing until we see the results of the PC recommendation – who recommended the increased caps? What will Council do with PC’s recommendation – especially as concerns Orcas and Eastsound UGA, which took a HUGE hit and still carries the brunt of the load. All PC meetings are recorded and searchable. See the agenda for Tuesday – items 2 and 4.
I asked in both letters that Steve’s removal hearing be dropped from the Agenda for the 17th for the above-mentioned reasons. I hope Council will NOT vote on the 17th- that they’ll continue the hearing while they digest Public input – both on VR caps and on Steve’ hearing. We all need proper time to learn what’s true, gather Public Records, and educate ourselves – as well as encourage Council to consult their own Legal and write sound policy so they can’t be sued.
Let’s find out what has happened over this past 2 years, in the midst of covid lockdowns and economic, physical, and psychological damages and hardships for our community. We don’t have all the data yet. We need it, because FACTS will give us the truth.
I took the ball and ran with what Steve and another individual told me, without verifying anything with Cindy or with the person I vilified unjustly; David Williams – Erika Shook’s replacement as director of DCD. That was sloppy, lazy, and irresponsible of me. I know a lot more now about the Comp Plan Review process, which is 6 YEARS behind schedule. How did that happen? We need all the facts. Who’s responsible for these kinds of delays? Who sued, and why? How does that affect us all? Admittedly, that leaves Steve in a tough spot if they go through with his removal – which is why I wrote in the first place. That said, there is a much bigger, interconnected picture to all of this. We need to know what that is, first and foremost.
I wrote a second letter to council on May 11, apologizing for my wrong-headed assumptions about David, and also to ask that they draft and adopt some formalized, written, transparent way to level complaints against any planning commissioner or volunteer on any advisory board. Steve had outlined one protocol for the way to go about any complaints or intent for disciplinary actions or removal. I think we need more: We need a way for Council to receive complaints while protecting any whistleblowers. We need warnings to be given in written form – not by phone – in a step by step process; maybe probation would be part of it with removal as the final step if necessary. This would be fair to all parties and guide our steps.
I have a good relationship with Cindy Wolf. I was distressed to watch the April 19th council meeting where she asked to have a hearing for Steve’s removal; I do not know her to be rash. Now that I understand more of the complexities affecting the Comp Plan review process, I empathize with Council’s wish to have the Comp Plan done by this year’s Work Plan deadline in July. It’ will take another year (2023) for DCD to make the regulations and policies supporting the Vision. David Williams was handed a huge task – to finish the comp plan elements by the deadline so that they can finalize it in fall and start working on regulations and policy in Jan. 2023. They have to start this entire Comp Plan Review process over in 2025! That’s a lot of pressure.
Regulations and policies ought to follow the vision, but the way things are going, being 6 years late really backs DCD and Council into a corner, as concerns The GMA. We have no good way to take care of environments that are crucial to our water quality, among other things like nearshore protection and salmon recovery. If we don’t uphold the Environmental element and make meaningful policy and regulations to protect it, we’ll forever lose our rural character and quality of life. We will lose even more right to protect these things in the future; they are already so badly eroded.
We can’t afford to gloss over or weaken protective and fair regulations if we want to plan how we grow, and truly assess how much the tourism and real estate industries are impacting us. It’s not hard to see how. Eastsound UGA and the obscene proliferation of VRBOs and seasonal homes here, along with all the road projects tearing up our town and our trees – here- where we can least afford to have more deforestation happen in a wetland watershed, or our workers pushed out. The Ferry issues. People are leaving due to lack of affordable housing, effectively exiling and eradicating our middle class – all these are perfect examples of Things Gone Wrong.
How to give incentive for doing right by the environment and quality of life not just for the rich, when some continue to repeat-violate it? That’s where meaningful regulations enter. They protect the rest of us and our ecosystems from repeat violators who’ve gotten away with the harms caused for decades.
We need to have all the facts and get to the bottom of things. Who did what to whom, when, and how does that affect us all? Why might these things be grounds for removal of someone – or not? Everything should be documented in written electronic retrievable form; recordings, emails, whatever. A
Archive it all and make it transparent – make timeline graphs of these trajectories. I’m sure citizen volunteers would be glad to step up to help collect and compile these data. Otherwise it’s just more hearsay and misinformation fomenting more division. It’s an inconvenient truth that those who who really have the power are not the politicians. I’m interested in knowing who really runs this County.
It’s time to efficiently and effectively finish the comp plan elements so we can set meaningful policies and regulations. I hope it’s a last resort to remove any advisory committee member, including Steve – unless they are clearly obstructing the process for their own self-interests or financial gain. Again, facts gathered would help us see what really happened that’s not based on hearsay, but rather, on actions. We must go a lot further back than the April PC and Council meetings to understand all of this.
I suspect that the root of the challenge to Steve Smith’s performance as a member of the Planning Commission lies in different perceptions within the CC, DCD, the PC and the public as to their respective roles in planning for the future of San Juan County as spelled out in WA State law…law which, I believe, any local ordinances on this topic must conform.
Before further actions are taken, I would like to hear the SJC Prosecutor’s office spell out, clearly and comprehensively, exactly what WA State law states about the roles of ALL parties so that everyone is on the same page as we, hopefully, move forward with the update of our Comprehensive Plan.
Fred, well stated.
Council member Wolf has publicly asked for a hearing to remove a volunteer committee member who is charged with safeguarding the development and modification of the comprehensive plan. She has accused him of “inefficiency, neglegence of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
A good prosecutor knows that you never bring a case until you have a solid basis upon which to bring it. While this hearing is not a judicial hearing, it is quasi-judicial in nature. By bringing forward and accusation as serious as the one above, Ms. Wolf has decided that Mr. Smiths actions are so egregious as to warrant his removal from one of the most important advisory groups in the county. Further, by bringing forth the accusation she has determined that the harm to his reputation is justified by this accusation.
To date, the public has been provided with nothing in terms of enumeration, quantification and evidence to support these claims. The Planning Commission, as a body, has not asked for Council to take this action. The Clean Water Advisory Board (whom Mr. Smith is accused of harming) has not, as a body asked for Council to take this action. The County manager, to whom the Planning Commission reports to, has not publicly asked Council to take this action. It would be useful for everyone involved, public included, to have the full body of available information published before any hearing is held.
Trust is hard to build. Trust is easy to destroy. Citizen Volunteers are hard to find. Let hope Council acts correctly on this one.
Thank you for printing my opinion letter.
Fred’s comment comes close to the crux. It all boils down to different opinions on the direction we want to take for our present and future quality of life – how we want to grow, and how much. That said, it all depends on who’s defining trust, and what their aims and motives are. If a small minority get their way as a matter of course, while a large majority feel unheard, that could be considered breach of trust.
I agree with others that we need full body of information; also a middle ground and meaningful dialogue – all of us working together .It’s all too easy to raise the pitchforks – like I did – without knowing all the facts, which I still don’t know. I think we owe it to ourselves to put down whatever pitchforks we’re holding and make it known that we don’t want this hearing to happen. The best thing that could happen would be to postpone it indefinitely, or cancel it.
Doesn’t the Council Chair have authority to cancel or postpone – and if so, why doesn’t she use it? We’ve all asked Council that they not go through with it. Let’s get back to finishing the Comp Plan review.
RCW 36.70.110 Commission-Removal provides that “after a public hearing, any appointed member of a commission may be removed by the chair of the board, with the approval of the board, for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” Consequently it would appear that Ms. Wolf’s motion may be out of order.
Additional policies and procedures, if deemed necessary and consistent with State Law, may be adopted by the Council but they may not be applied retroactively because of that little Ex Post Facto thingy in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, but of course those are just guidelines, silly me.
Back in the days of the old republic, ….
I think it is important to point out that Steve Smith has only been a member of the Planning Commision since December of 2020. Given that, I feel pretty comfortable concluding that he is not responsible for the comprehensive plan being 6 years behind schedule.
Tenar Hall et al- I am not saying that Steve is responsible for the Comp Plan being almost 6 years late; just noting that it is and how that has put a lot of pressure on the County and DCD. I’m interested in finding out who or what did contribute to the delays, though, and how we can prevent them from happening in the future. If we went back the 6 years, it might help us understand if this is a continuum, which I personally think it is – or not – in which case I have no problem admitting I was wrong..
I have repeatedly said that we should drop the hearing. We don’t have all the information about what happened in this particular case. I have also asked that Council not vote on the removal issue, until we have that information and until I am sure they have read every single letter and document concerning this situation – even if it means continuing to continue the hearing at later dates, ad infinitum. Voting before having read all Public Comments and sorting through all the information would be premature. Not sure why people keep seeing this as an argument when all along, I have agreed with them on this one thing.
When looking at reasons for the 6 year delay in the development of the Comprehensive Plan update, look at how many regular PC meetings didn’t happen or rejected proposals that the PC meet longer or more often to regain ground, Look at valid requests for data that were not filled. Most of that was the result of a chronically understaffed department struggling to find the time to satisfy all the demands of the required work.
I don’t believe there were any lawsuits during that time. They won’t start till the Plan is finalized.
In response to Peg Manning’s comment; Your last two sentences. How are we to get anywhere on the Comp Plan when someone is always suing – whether on the development side or the environmental protections side (which always seems to lose). I think herein lies the crux. That, and the county never reined in the speculative land buyers and sellers, as we asked them to do with strong regulations against this practice decades ago. I think the county attempted to make a “two year rule” or some weak nod to the problem, but never really addressed the rapacious, greedy profiteering by people who have no stake at all in our community. So if this DCD reins that in, of course there’ll be lawsuits because the gravy train will be slowed down and the Golden Goose can get some rest from constant egg laying.