for helping make it happen! With all the problems in the world and the political unrest, the festival has been such a wonderful respite for the soul! Thank you again! Karen and Toby Hiller Orcas Island
Yes to charter amendments The charter has been a good experiment but the adjustments recommended by the Charter Review Committee will make it better. The three amendment proposals deserve the public’s support. Many of us find that only being able to have a voice in the choice of one in six council members under the current charter is far less representative than the proposal to be able to vote for all three council members. Citizens have also found that trying to get things done and dealing with issues by first going through one council member, then five additional council members, then a county administrator is frustrating. Lastly, under the current charter, the county administrator pretty much marches to his own drum. It takes a majority of four council members to adjust the county’s coarse and for the poor citizen, there may be no response at all. Under the three-council member system that 33 of the 39 counties in the state follow, most citizens and county staff find the system works. When the council can meet with their department heads, discuss and establish policy direction and move forward, everyone knows what they are going to be doing and the work gets done. If an administrator is assigned special projects by the council, it extends the ability of the council to respond to the citizens. With a three-member council, no single elected official is in a position to take any action regarding county staff or policy. Any action is subject to a majority vote of the council that reflects the will of the citizens. Our local government belongs to our citizens. The proposed amendments will make it work better. I sincerely hope that SJC voters will vote in favor the the three improvements to our charter as proposed by the charter committee. John Evans Former County Commissioner
No to charter amendments I am urging a no vote on both Propositions 1 and 2 of the Charter Review. We owe a thank you to the review commission members who considered the issues. We owe it to ourselves to vote no on Propositions 1 and 2 Charter Review. I see no benefit in reducing the current six-member council to three members. There will be no cost savings. Under the Open Public Meetings Act, any two of them are a quorum so they can never meet, exchange emails, conference call or even research a problem outside of a public meeting. The county is a $40 million dollar, complex enterprise. The best chances for creative decision-making under these draconian conditions will come from having six brains, six sets of expertise and life experiences tackling the issues. Why pay the same amount of money to get one half the level of input and expertise? The cost of running a county-wide campaign under Prop. 1 is too dear a price to pay. It is estimated it will cost between $30,000 to $50,000 to campaign county-wide. Currently it takes $7,000 to run in a district. That means we now elect our council for a combined campaigning cost of about $42,000. If we pass Prop. 1 we will spend somewhere around $90,000 to $150,000 electing our council. Unless you consider signage an “investment” that money is forever lost to community. Does that make any sense to you? Candidates will not go into personal debt to
finance a $30,000-plus campaign. They naturally will seek outside “support.” If there is one system we all loathe it is one called “the best candidate money can buy.” Passing Prop 1 means we reinvigorate the vested, special interest, political financial support game we have thus far managed to largely avoid. Do you really want to up this ante? Finally, passing Proposition 1 would give disproportionate representation to Lopez. They have fewer people but will end up with one-third of the vote. One vote per major island is a flawed model. Currently we enjoy as close to the one vote per person model as we can get. We are better off for it. Vote no on Proposition 1 and 2 of the Charter Review. Martha Farish Art Lange Vote No on Prop. 1 and 2 Charter Review Committee I supported the changes made by the charter approved by the voters in 2005. Thus, I am distressed that Proposition 2 would eliminate the present position of county administrator, a professional position similar to that of a CEO in a private company, with a real role in the leadership of the county. This position fulfills an important part of the separation of powers concept of governance. The position prevents mismanagement and inappropriate, politically motivated intrusions into operations by the legislative branch. The position of county manager proposed by the Charter Review Committee sounds innocent enough but the differences are sig-
Shop local, SAN JUAN talk to a real INSURANCE live person, YOUR PROTECTION IS OUR PROFESSION Save $$$! 360-376-2141 • sji@sanjuanins.com
SJI
Octavia’s Bistro at the...
Enjoy Guilt Free Indulgence Serving Vegan, Gluten Free & Raw Food, Options Available Open for dinner from 5 to 9 pm 376-4300 orcas@orcashotel.com
Page 5
nificant: the Manager position is more like an administrative assistant. Because of the lack of separation of the administrative and legislative branch a key separation that Proposition 2 seeks to undo the real people in charge would be, like before the charter, the multi-headed council, who as before would meddle giv-
ing conflicting direction to the hired manager causing confusion, stagnation and legal chaos. I choose not to go back to this. The challenges we face in our county are significant. We need the very best and most highly qualified administrator we can find to direct the complicated day-to-day operations of
Guest column
CRC wasted its time by Susan Meister
Observing the machinations of the Charter Review Commission has been instructive. The Home Rule Charter of 2005 was the first to succeed in over twenty years in Washington state with a 65 percent majority of San Juan County voters. Now it is clear that the CRC is hoping to overturn two of its key provisions, sending San Juan County back to an unsuccessful past. It should be noted that at least three of those who have dominated the CRC’s questionably democratic deliberations were the same freeholders who were against Home Rule in 2005. Three of those who are championing arguments for the amendments effectively returning the county to the old board of commissioners form of government, were previous members of that board. Even Kevin Ranker has descended from his high post as State Senator to align himself with the arguments to eviscerate the charter. He appears to be one of those waiting in the
weeds for the chance to resurrect an antiquated vehicle that some of his former colleagues might even wish to hop onto again. What credibility do those possess who opposed Home Rule from the beginning, whose livelihoods and social status were adversely affected by the charter, to propose that it be gutted? Surely the enlightened voters of San Juan County will see the CRC exercise for what it is: a folly. The charter made significant strides in taking the government out of the hands of partisan politicians whose meddling in the administrative branch of county government was a disaster for the taxpayers. It too often resulted in unlawful terminations and thousands of dollars in personnel lawsuits. This is the administrative and legal chaos to which the CRC proposes to return. As importantly, through Proposition 1, the CRC proposes returning to the full-time, three-member, at large Commission form of government, resulting in
the county. The only way to ensure that we attract such a competent professional is by keeping the separation of powers and the position of county administrator as set forth in the present charter. Please Vote No on Charter Review Props 1 and 2! Peggy Hoyle Orcas Island
unequal representation of the islands’ communities. No rational explanation for retreating from a one-person, one-vote democracy has been offered. Those who wrote the charter wisely envisioned that it would need improvement. In focusing on simply taking it down, the leaders of the CRC wasted the opportunity to make it better. In the end, government is only as good as those who are elected to carry it out. It is a mistake to blame the structure – the charter – for how it has operated. If you don’t like the job your representatives have done, elect new ones. Otherwise it is like burning down a building you have lovingly constructed because the plumbing doesn’t work. Forward movement is the definition of progress. Do not be deceived by arguments that going back to the past will burnish the future. Stand in the voting booth proud to cast a vote for progress. Vote no on Propositions 1 and 2. Susan Meister, a longtime resident of San Juan Island, was a founding principal in the Charter movement. She now lives in San Francisco and Pebble Beach with her husband, Robert Montgomery.
LETTERS FROM 4
www.ISLANDSSOUNDER.com
Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012 • The Islands’ Sounder
Serving Orcas Island for 127 years. Your Orcas Island Community Church call 376-6422 for info
N OW E NROLLING P RESCHOOL -G RADE 6 C REATIVE F INANCING O PTIONS AVAILABLE When a child loves school, amazing things can happen. • • • •
Smaller Class Sizes Deeper Learning Arts are integral Call 360-376-6310
www.salmonberryschool.org