By Rich Peterson, District 2
Marc Forlenza, District 3
The effort by Council members Marc Forlenza and Rich Peterson to promote an ordinance from the County Council to place two measures on the November, 2013 ballot, has generated several questions, primary among them, “Why are we making this effort and why now?”
The reasons we have brought this forward are many, but are primarily due to the continued concerns we hear from our constituents regarding unequal district population. As we move forward in the implementation we continue to realize the implications of this imbalance. Examples are: a need to revise our Planning Commission make-up to match these unequal districts, and that future Charter Review Commissions will also be elected and represented by these unequal districts. Consider the following: While all citizens will have the opportunity to vote for all Council positions, the “at-large” representation stops at the door of the County’s Commissions, Committees, and Boards where districts are the determining factor.
To illustrate the point above, our Planning Commission will consist of a full 1/3 from the district with 1/6 of the population and another 1/3 coming from the district with ½ the population under our code. This unrepresentative allocation is generating growing apprehension.
Additionally, the new model has an inherent sell-perpetuating feature in that while County Council members are to be elected countywide, future Charter Review Commissioners are to be elected by district. This means that the Lopez district will always be disproportionally represented which is very advantageous for them. “Everybody voting for everyone” in the case of future CRC members was purposefully made not to apply.
Some of our opposition would like you to believe that our effort is motivated by unwillingness to accept the “will of the people.” We assure you that this is not the case. The fact is that the CRC offered the voters a single choice to move to 3 unequal districts with elections countywide. We propose to offer you an alternative.
Our proposal is to introduce two propositions that would give voters the opportunity to decide whether 5 districts far more proportionate in population are more desirable than 3, and whether the Council members should be elected by district. We are presenting this because we believe that the majority of the people we represent would like to be able to vote on further modifying the Charter.
We believe now that the changes we propose can be made in the normal election sequence without the need for any special elections. We will discuss this next week.
We are bringing our proposal forward now because the current Council can get it done before our terms end. As noted in some of the local media over the past week, it is unclear whether the Charter amendments retain the right of our citizens (through the Initiative process) to put forth such a proposition in the future if they find the representation to be problematic. It is very unlikely that the new 3-member Council would bring forth these Charter propositions which would mean a reduction in authority if two more Council representatives were added. Lopez would, of course, relinquish its newly acquired and unrepresentative power, a forfeiture which would be energetically fought should the notion of changing the degree of Lopez influence be suggested in the future. The current Council and the voters are looking at a limited time to act. When the new Council is seated it is likely that the window of opportunity will close – possibly for 10 years.
We are extremely concerned about the future of governance in San Juan County. We do not believe the people have gotten a fair shake. We are trying to provide one.
Well, I guess then that Mark and Rich still haven’t read the charter. Per the Charter:
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.
(a) The CRC shall consist of fifteen to twenty-five (15-25) persons.
The number of CRC members for each County Council Residency
District shall be apportioned according to the population
distribution in each County Council Residency District.
(b) Candidates for the CRC must be residents of the county and
registered voters of the district in which they run and have been
registered voters in the County for at least five (5) years preceding
their election.
There shall be no filing fee nor shall there be a primary. The
qualified voters of the respective districts shall vote only for
candidates from their district at the general election. Candidates’
names shall appear on all ballots as drawn by lot.
(d) The member of the CRC who receives the greatest number of votes
shall convene the first CRC meeting.
(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.
(f) The CRC shall meet at such times and in such places as it deems
appropriate upon having given public notice.
So future CRC’s will have representation based upon then current population in each district. So each district will be represented proportionately. Haven’t found the Planning COmmission creation statute, but I suspect a similar approach could/should be used. Not too hard to figure out. Sounds like more unjustified excuses for unnecessary changes to me.
Oh and let us not forget, that the 5 proposed districts would not be equal in population either. This is one of the reasons the CRC rejected this alternative when they were examining this question. Of course, we could always lump a piece of San Juan Island and place it in with the Lopez and Shaw folks to create almost equal districts. But again, this was rejected as a no-win idea by the CRC. And of course, if you leave the 5 districts voted on county-wide instead of by district, then the only thing that 5 adds over 3 is increased expenses (Five offices, five computers, five copies of everything as compared to 3 – so thus the CRC decided that 3 would be cheaper and simpler). So I’m still not convinced that the real reasons are being expressed by our dearly beloved Council Members championing this idea. But hey – what does everyone else think – I’m just one person…
Perhaps instead of pursuing complicated lawsuits, appeals, and propositions (which most of the public will never read) – the Council could simply hold a public meeting on Lopez titled:
“Yes, we regret your influence in politics and wish to minimize your rights as voters”.
I wish that someone would please come here and explain to the general public of Lopez why you are so intent on muting them. I can assure you that 90% of the people here don’t have a clue why you are so upset.
Marc & Rich,
Thank you both for your transparency. And by transparency, I mean how easy it is to see through your self-serving intentions. May I remind you the results of November took place in a county wide election, and the citizens of SJ county, regardless of island population, together, voted to end a worthy experiment of County government. This was based of course on recommendations of an overwhelming majority of nonpartisan CRC members.
So as you step out the door of your terms in office, your farewell gift is to cost the county more money with an unessesary and costly ballot measure and additional special election. And let me guess, you’ll feel the call to serve once more when you’ve set up odds again in your favor.
Your desperation to hold on to power looks ugly. Please end this pursuit while you still have your dignity.
Voters who approved the three-person council form of government did so primarily because of the greater guarantee of transparency it affords. This has to do with protections provided by state law regarding open public meetings. That degree of transparency cannot be provided under a council consisting of any number greater than three.
County-wide voting gives voters from all districts the power to elect the candidate from the smallest district. Voters seeking greater influence and power for their own particular district would not have approved it.
It is not the business of outgoing members of the current council to try to undo the results of last November’s elections. Period.
First, as to Bill Watson’s comments;#1: Bill is re-enforcing our point that the CRC elections will be by-district rather than county-wide by showing the actual language, and #2: Bill”s explanation for why the CRC chose not to provide the option of 5 districts reflects the CRC’s determined effort to avoid any number except the one it decided in the second week of “deliberations,” without any research or investigation. His logic that 5 computers, offices, etc. would be more expensive is odd, given that we already have 6 of everything and he is assuming that 5 would continue with the “full-time” salary, which would be up to the salary commission, no one else. And thanks for the “dearly beloved,Bill; I’m fond of you too.
As to Brian’s comments,I’m not upset and do not want to mute anyone. What I am looking for is giving the voters the option of a more representative form of government. The voices of Lopez were not muted with the Charter we adopted in 2005. The amendments recently adopted restored an unfair and inequitable system in which all voters are not treated equally and fairly. Finally, while it is true that the 5 districts would not be completely equal (as were the 6 districts we had), they are far more equal than the 3 we have now.
Rich Peterson, 2nd District Council Member
A reminder that is useful when talking about “the will of the people”. Orcas voters did not approve the changes to the Charter, San Juan barely approved it and Lopez understandably voted overwhelmingly to approve. The net result; it passed. Clearly San Juan and Orcas voters were divided and conflicted and rendered a “close” decision–Lopez reacted very strongly one way and carried the day for the overall passage. So yes, it passed but I would not characterize us united in our “will”. I am bothered that any large block opinion on any one island can carry the day for everyone…which is something I believe equal districts helps to avoid.
Mea Culpa, Rich. I thought you were stating that the Charter requires that each residency district would have equal representation on the next CRC (I.E. 7 from each district to make up a CRC of say 21). But that is NOT what I now understand you are trying to say, so the previous CRC had something like 10 from SJI, 7 from Orcas, and 4 from Lopez/Shaw based upon population and were elected by district-only voters (3 districts on SJI, 2 districts on Orcas, 1 district on Lopez/Shaw). The Charter now states that representation to the future CRC “shall be apportioned according to the population distribution in each County Council Residency District” and elected by district-only voters. So assuming the county population is proportionately the same as it was last year, then SJI would elect 10, Orcas/Waldron would elect 7 and Lopez/Shaw would elect 4 to compose a CRC of 21. Thus the same result as the previous CRC. I guess I still don’t understand the problem here. Where is the error in my understanding?? I am truly trying to understand if I’m missing something.
And, let us all wish Mark Forlenza well on his recovery from his “reported heart attack” he had this morning. May he have a safe and speedy recovery!!
Mr. Watson seems to have a window into the proceedings of the CRC that was not available to most of us. The decision to propose only one form of Council (three members elected County-wide) was made in the first week or two of the CRC’s long months of deliberations. Indeed, I recall hearing that the new council of three and the new manager would be paid within reasonable ranges and save lots of money, but that pretense is totally gone out the window, as the new council members will be paid $75,000 plus $15,000 approx. in benefits and the manager, who was going to be paid $75,000, if I recall correctly, is now looking at a salary of $100,000+benefits. And, As Mr. Peterson has already pointed out, the Council already has six of everything–including offices. So savings cannot be the rationale.
Councilmembers have the right to propose (for three touches and a vote by the full Council) virtually any topic for consideration by the voters. That consideration for the provisions pending before Council for the second touch would be at the regularly scheduled November election, where we will no doubt be presented with a host of other questions, such as levy lifts and extensions, so the notion of added expense for a ballot measure is also baseless. (And, we note, we do not recall these writers complaining about the CRC November-February-April election marathon we are in the midst of now.) The proposals in question will advance ONLY if there are four members of the Council voting in favor.
None of the proposals pending at Council would reinstate the elected Council members–even though they were elected to four year terms–so the comment about holding on to “power” is peculiar and unnecessary.
We can argue until the cows come home about the Lopez “tail” wagging the County “dog.” Most Orcas voters certainly felt that was not a good idea.
Now, overshadowing all, there is serious confusion about what Charter language is even in effect, given some reported missteps in the process.
Maybe some of us on the other islands WANT Lopez to have equal voice. We are all individual islands; regardless of population, we all need to have equal voice. All islands voting for all council persons is the only way that all voices will be heard. I support Lopez Island having an equal voice to Orcas and San Juan Islands.