— by Lyn Perry —
I have known Randy Gaylord as a good neighbor, a fellow parent, and a dedicated public servant. During his 24 years as San Juan County prosecutor he has shown an incomparable dedication to protecting our island communities.
He has a long list of accomplishments, but two especially impress me: ordinances that Randy authored with far-reaching consequences for our environment:
- The prohibition of jet skis in San Juan County
- The establishment of a first distance requirement to keep vessels from disturbing orcas in our surrounding waters.
Through his hard work and dedication on these issues, he has protected our environment, our way of life, and our beloved killer whales.
I know how deeply Randy cares about these islands and the people who inhabit them. He brings passion, intelligence, and years of experience to the job of County prosecutor. Let’s keep him in office for another four years of good, dedicated governance.
Please vote!
Lyn Perry is a retired Orcas Island Middle School Teacher
**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.**
Thank you for that important information, Lyn.
It’s helpful and it’s “positive.” I appreciate knowing about the accomplishments and experience that sees Orcas’ habitat as worth protecting.
We need to keep the focus on positive accomplishments that are witnessed and documented.
Twenty-four years? That should offer us, especially those of us who are newer to the community, an important yardstick; your testimony helps to fill in the picture.
Politics is so unnecessarily negative and so
easily spun to distort. We need to return campaigning to a higher level of respect and quality—despite what’s happening elswhere.
It matters and it better matches the higher quality of residents on Orcas Island, many of whom give
so freely of their time for the benefit of all.
That makes your comments all the more important— especially when we have 24-years worth of evidence to back them up..
I feel I must comment on these letters of approval that continue to cite just two accomplishments of Randy Gaylord. In 24 years Randy has built a huge infrastructure around his office. The budget of the San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney surpasses many of the surrounding Counties which have two to three times the population we do. It is time to take a hard look at where out money is being spent and who it benefits. It is time for a change.
Randy Gaylord has accomplished much more than those two. Stopping the take-over of operation of the Orcas and Lopez transfer stations by a private contractor is a good example of his many actions for the people of our County.
It’s notable that those who oppose Randy are those who have been on the opposing side in the court cases where he is upholding our laws.
Some Real World Perspective:
1. Twenty-four years in office?- I would think that a DA in office for 24 years would have (quite naturally and normally) made many more (fr)enemies than what I’ve seen on display here. That there’s not more than what I’ve seen here would make me think he’s been the town’s “Deacon” for 24-years instead of its DA.
2. Gaylord represents a known and measured quantity. By itself, that’s an important community asset.
3. Of course there’d be a significant build up of lateral community support and good will throughout the community as well as a healthy budget after 24-years on the job making him somewhat of an expert at managing his office. Is that in and of itself a negative? I think not. Lacking any verifiable malfeasance in office, on balance this would appear to be a net positive for the community. Without a probable reason, we don’t go on fishing expeditions. That’s politics not fair play.
4. The issue of the trial that went sideways now being used against the DA? Without a showing of actual criminal, complicit or some kind of conspiratorial conduct, to now hold this against him would seem to cut the DA no slack for being less than a perfect man…something half our population knows about quite well. To infer the loss of that case, seemingly on grounds that appear to be outside his purview, means we toss out 24-years of good service is nothing short of foolish, as in “penny wise, pound foolish.”
5. The issue of the pending lawsuit against the County? (Editor’s note: sorry Chris, you’ve spent your 350 words before adding this paragraph. Appreciate your efforts to keep within the 350 word limits. In future will probably delete the whole comment. Thanks for working with me).
The Prosecuting Attorney is held to a higher standard due to his Oath of serving all the people. He is the County attorney and he must advise the Council how to act according to the established Charter and County Codes along with upholding State and Federal laws and regulations. He is mandated to uphold and defend the decisions of our County Departments. He must not act on his own to win favors for his friends. When the Prosecuting Attorney breaks from his mandated oath he must be held accountable. We cannot do much to reign in the actions on the national level but we must take a hard look at what is happening locally. I think we all believe that ‘truth is truth’ and we must hold our elected officials, no matter who they are, accountable for all their actions. Twenty four years is long enough. It is time for us to take a hard look at our own house. I have stood up for my property rights here in San Juan County enough to know that it comes with its share of retaliation. I have had two Notices of Violations served on me with “Stop Work Orders” and my Development Permits threatened to be removed, both actions removed after I didn’t back down. I have had a sit down with Randy with my attorney and was given false and misleading information. I have had false and libelous information put in the Public Record and the Courts by “Team Randy”. I welcome the chance to talk with anyone about my experiences and then you can tell me if you still believe our current PA is best for the County.
it is time for a change for the better!!!!
Michael- in an effort to understand your above comments I looked at the 2012 “Barn” matter on which you substantially prevailed at the Court of Appeals (rightly so in my view given no final determination under LUPA had been reached) (but also– had you only addressed limiting the future possible use of the Barn in your side agreement with your prior neighbor and not just building w/in 20 feet of same perhaps much could have been avoided–that’s an example of no good “neighborly” deed goes unpunished); and I also reviewed the entire record of the of the Deer Harbor Bridge application. You substantially won on the former but lost the appeal of the Channel Road replacement bridge. I noted in your argument that you felt a formal EIR was needed; but you were also concerned about your oyster beds under the existing bridge and Erik Smith, who stood along side you, was worried about the impact of the moor-ability of the 80-90 boats in the marina–both concerns of which I think are very legitimate. On the the County’s side stood Friends of San Juan among other govt and quasi-govt entities. Their side seemed to be concerned about the safety and ecological impact of the existing bridge–i.e., interference of the natural flows of water and the overall health of the Estuary (sediment quality and even affects on the Chinook Salman population). btw–did it finally cost $1.4m as projected? Highly doubt it.
Here’s my question: your concerns noted above re: Permits being pulled, Notices of Violations and Stop Work Orders–I presume these actions flowed from the County’s interpretation of the SJCC. Are your above concerns based on disagreements about the better interpretation of the SJCC? You win some and lose some is how I see it. How does this impact the PA? Is it because he’s the enforcer of last resorts? I’m just trying to connect the dots.
Chris – To summarize, I was in business for 20 years without problems until I appealed an after-the-fact building permit to turn a previously determined illegally built barn sitting 17” from my property line in the shoreline into a guest house. I was told the conversion was approved because “my boundary line was incorrect” – a false statement. I was told that a no-build agreement, affecting my property only, allowed the neighbor to ignore County setback requirements – another false statement. I was told “no decision was made” then told I was untimely with an appeal because a decision was made. I was told to “move on” by Randy himself when I raised questions to County staff and Council. In my opinion, only when I continued to push the issue of false statements was I subject to harassment and intimidation and retaliation in the form of NOV’s.
I did prevail at the first COA Hearing – the question is why did a small business owner with proper permits have to go to court to defend false statements coming from or approved by Randy?
Throughout all this there was no question that a building permit had been issued for the barn. According to the CDP Head the “Official County position was that a permit was issued”. “Team Randy” ignored our own Department Head, contradicted their own previous arguments, and argued in the courts that no permit existed.
Your questions about SJCC interpretations is not the issue here. The issue is that “Team Randy” argues false statements and ignores the Department Head interpretation of CC before the courts to further their own cause or the cause of friends or attorney friends. I stood up for the truth and for the “Official Position of the County” and find that the position of the County depends on what Randy wants.
In my opinion this is a serious violation of his office. Any citizen should be able to ask questions and should be able to have a frank discussion about issues without fear of retaliation or intimidation.