||| FROM WILLIAM APPEL |||
We elected our county government to, among other things, regulate our shared environment and protect individual rights. The Charter Review Commission has perceived a failure of citizens to prompt action on these issues. This has resulted in:
Proposition 3, creates a nine-member advisory Environment and Climate Commission without enforcement powers, that duplicates a focused county department and the functions of existing advisory committees that are themselves in need of additional members;
Proposition 5, Nondiscrimination (strict if you’re small business, more relaxed if you’re big), but in any event non-mandatory because the word “shall” is used. The US Supreme Court has ruled that “shall” generally means “may.” To create a legal obligation in a law, “must” is required. Gutierez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 US 417 (1995); and
Proposition 6 creates an eleven-member advisory body largely functionally duplicative of the already existing county Law and Justice Panel (SJCC §2.10.090) to which citizen concerns can be directed.
These bodies are proposed to do what we citizens can and should be doing. It’s your choice. Do you want to bloat and dilute your government and delegate your civic duties to three vaporous bureaucratic bodies?
Vote No on Propositions 3, 5 and 6.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Bill Appel’s analysis is usually right on, but in the case of our county government being “focused” on Climate issues, I must disagree. Neither the county council nor the departments that they supervise have the bandwidth to address such a complex problem that will only be addressed by staying up on the rapidly evolving ways to reduce our human footprints on our planet. A diverse group of citizen volunteers with a commitment to helping us adapt to the accelerating challenges we face will be very useful. They can recommend a menu of options that will empower both our government and individuals to address the impacts of rising carbon dioxide in both our atmosphere and our oceans. We are in this together. Both our individual and collective choices matter. We should not expect our county government to solve these problems without citizen involvement. I have voted YES on Proposition 3!
I agree with Janet on desired ends. I am saying that this particular proposition won’t get us there. The county environmental department aided by existing advisory committees is an existing an effective tool, aided, I might add, by the efforts of nonprofits. No new expert talent is added to the mix. This is not a step forward.
Bill Appel has hit the nail on the head. We all seem committed to addressing the environment. The proposed Charter amendment does nothing to get us there. Just look at the history of the Puget Sound Partnership and its predecessors. Bureaucracy for days; no real progress.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 3.
It appears that an environmental consulting firm is a financial sponsor of the proposition. Perhaps that the drafters have in mind–spending even more money on consulting fees?
Peg: Are you referring to Northwest Passage Consulting, LLC from Seattle who “sponsored” the recent mailer asking for support for the six charter amendments? NWP is owned by Christian Sinderman and provides political campaign consulting services. One such service is providing ‘sponsorship’ for advertising expenditures on ballot measures in a way that shields the underlying contributors from itemizing and reporting those contributions to the Public Disclosure Commission. .As far as I can tell, this practice is legal under RCW 14.72A.320.
That’s the group. I was unaware of their specialty.