Letter to the Editor: Propositions 1 & 2 Would Create Unfair, Politicized Climate

I am opposed to these Propositions because, unlike what is claimed by the proponents:

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of counties in the U.S. have more than 3 Council members
Proposition 1 would result in unequal and unfair representation
By electing full time representatives through expensive countywide campaigns it would a) open the door to special interest influence, b) change the nature of our candidates from working people in our community to “career politicians”, 3) give one island the opportunity to influence greatly who all three of the Council members will be.
Proposition 2, by having the Council run operations, would create a multi-headed boss structure that would politicize operations, open the door to “cronyism”, create confusion in operations, and lead to political jockeying; this would lead to less accountability not more.
Proposition 2 would make it much less likely that we could hire a highly competent, professionally qualified Administrator since the position would be reduced to that of a “lackey” of the Council.
The major components of these Propositions were locked in by the Commission by their second meeting; this process was supposed to have sought public input before deciding not after; only the input that supported their locked in decisions was used in their Findings report.
The purpose of the Charter Review was to fine tune the system that the voters approved in 2005, not gut it and return to the system we, the voters, decided was flawed.
Clearly, improvements can be made in the quality of our governance. However, that is best achieved by electing competent Council members to the three open positions and finding a competent and collaborative Administrator to fill that positions, not by gutting the Charter and creating disruption.

For more information on why we, the voters, should vote No on Propositions1 and 2, please go to www.votenocharterreview1and2.com.

Please vote NO on Charter Review Propositions 1 and 2!

Art Lange
Orcas Island

**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.**

3 Comments

Madrona Murphy October 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm

For the record Proposition 2 is based on a motion that was made at the CRC’s 3rd meeting and discussed extensively, at many meetings, before being voted on at the CRC’s 10th meeting in March. Each meeting included at least two times set aside for public comment.
Nelson Rios October 7, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Art:

Plain spoken and well said. I, too, encourage voters to vote NO on Propositions 1 and 2.
Moana Kutsche October 8, 2012 at 11:54 am

Actually, Art, 34 out of 39 Washington counties have 3 member councils. Of those that have more, all but San Juan County are very large and none have an even number. In western states, over 80% have 3 member councils (California and Texas are the exceptions). (County Government Structure: A State by State Report (2009).)

What are the “special interest influences” that are so fearsome? For at least the past 15 years, under both Code and Charter governments, San Juan County politics have been dominated by the same “special interest influences,” reflecting both local and state interests and monies, revolving around land use and regulation. I don’t see that changing, no matter what happens to the council elections.