— from Richard Grout —
I’d like to respond to your recent Guest Opinion entitled “County Councilors’ Votes Muddy Their Public Reputations.” The author asserts that our county council members, as part of a three county body charged with selecting a qualified person to replace our Democratic state senator, failed in their duty. They failed, she says, by not voting for the nominee who received the most votes from the 40th District Democratic precinct committee officers (PCOs). I respectfully beg to disagree.
The process for selecting a replacement is spelled out in the state constitution, in Article II, Section 15. It says, in part, …the vacancy shall be filled from a list of three nominees selected by the state central committee, by appointment by the joint action of the boards of county commissioners of the counties composing the joint senatorial or joint representative district…. The Constitution says nothing about how many votes each nominee got or any rank order. The PCOs give the joint body of elected officials three names. Those names are all equal at that point. The elected officials are free to choose any one of the three. They consider what their constituents have to say but they get to exercise their own judgment.
The author speculates about the various reasons our council members might have voted for Liz Lovelett, an Anacortes city council member, over Kris Lytton, our recently retired state representative from the 40th District. She also speculates that there may have been violations of the state Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). I would characterize some of her speculations as pretty far-fetched, some as insulting.
A lot of the PCOs are angry that our council members didn’t vote for their first choice. I get that. But in the 45 years I’ve lived here, if I had a dollar for every time the county commissioners or councilors didn’t do what I recommended I probably could have retired earlier.
I thought Kris Lytton was a very good state representative and I voted for her every time she ran. But I was stunned that she voted against making the legislature subject to the same Open Public Meetings Act [OPMA] that applies to every other elected official in the state. The justification put forward by Kris, and repeated by the author, is nonsense. Anyone who’s ever administered the OPMA or made a public disclosure request knows that public officials can redact information as long as they explain their reasons. Given that vote by Kris, I probably would not have supported her in another election.
I hear very good things about Liz Lovelett from friends who know her and her work and I trust Councilman Bill Watson’s judgment, so I’m quite comfortable with her appointment. It would be nice if everyone would give Liz a chance. And stop complaining because the county council didn’t agree with them.
Friday Harbor, WA
Richard,
Were you aware that one of Randy Gaylord’s objections to the recent county ordinance governing the collection and distribution of immigration status information was that it might put the county out of compliance with Public Disclosure Act ? Also, the Open Public Meetings act is not what she voted against. She voted for SB 6617.
SB6617 was about Public Records disclosure.
Cindy,
Here’s what the ACLU had to say: “SB 6617 would have recognized that certain legislative records are public records, and enforcement would have been internal to the legislature. The bill purported to provide a Public Records Act analogue for the legislature, but it had no meaningful enforcement mechanism, and would have created parallel exemptions, which appeared to be overbroad. The ACLU opposed this bill because its provisions raised concerns for governmental accountability.” That was my point. SB 6617 was an outrageous attempt at a smoke screen by the legislature. And, yes, you’re correct, Kris voted for it.
What this has to do with immigration escapes me.