Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012 • The Islands’ Sounder
LETTERS FROM 4 to county government, no one benefits by identifying only with his or her own particular island or district. The strict separation of powers obstructs timely government response to citizen concern. It gives an unelected administrator/manager independent power and confuses the issue of accountability, allowing one branch of government to blame the other when things go awry. Propositions 1, 2 and 3 do not “gut the charter.” They bring it closer in line with its original intent. Please vote YES to improve the charter. Angie Ponder Lopez Island I have been reading some of the letters submitted in opposition to the charter changes and find some of them misleading. For example, one reads that the county-wide voting recommended by the Charter Review Commission results in “unequal representation,” or a violation of “one-person, one-vote.” But as I see it, when you have all voters vote for all three positions, there is no unfairness. I like to think of San Juan County as one community, with some differences among islands. We elect one council to govern us. All the council should be voted on by all of us since many of the decisions the council makes have an impact on all of us. If the councilor from Lopez is going to make decisions that affect Orcas or San Juan, those islands should get to vote on who that councilor is going to be. Likewise, Lopez should have a say in voting for the councilors in the other districts. Best of all, with countywide voting, candidates will have to connect with islands other than the one they live on. We used to see candidates from Orcas and San Juan here on Lopez. And our candidates campaigned on Orcas and San Juan. Now we do not see candidates from other islands. They do not have to learn what our concerns are. The goal should be to make all councilors represent all voters. That is what the first charter proposition would accomplish. Another misleading theme in some of the letters has to do with “separation of powers” The writers claim the second proposition, having the county administrator or manager under the direction of the
council, violates some sort of principle. Actually, having the administrator or manager under the council just assures that the elected councilors govern the unelected administrator. Otherwise, the administrator is a power unto himself or herself. Is that democracy? Separation of powers makes sense when you have an elected mayor or county executive, but we do not have that system. I hope the public is not being confused or misled by some of these anti-change letters. Study what the commission is recommending and I believe that you will see that these changes will result in an improved charter, fair representation and better government. Liz Scranton Lopez Island The suggested changes to the charter provide one thing for each and every citizen of this county: empowerment, and I support all three recommendations. When I was a commissioner, I noticed that few people at the state level took our part-time council member counterparts seriously. They simply were not “in the know.” I have personally sat in Olympia in the offices of the Department of Ecology, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health, the Department of Labor and Industries, the Department of Commerce, and with the head of the State Parks Department, Department of Natural Resources, and what is now Puget Sound Partnership, advocating on behalf of citizens. I have sat on a State/Federal panel for oil spill protection with legislators, the Coast Guard, and the shipping industry. I personally visited the Vessel Traffic System in Vancouver, BC, to learn best how to protect our waters. When I asked to speak with these department heads and staff, they listened, because they knew I was full-time, represented by all the voters in the county, and because I had administrative experience, which is their role in government.
www.ISLANDSSOUNDER.com
The other part of empowerment is the simple ability to hold our county employees accountable to the public. Government and politics are messy in a democracy, but that comes with the territory. Citizens have a right to be heard and taken seriously. When the council members lost administrative ability and had to funnel every concern through the county executive about a department’s handling of the public, the citizen was left yet another step away from having any impact. There are other issues as well, such as the huge increase in cost of operating county government under the present system, but a full-time administratively functioning commissioner can make those budget changes, because they represent the public’s needs, not the need of the bureaucracy. Please vote Yes on these changes. Rhea Miller Lopez Island Much has been written about the larger issues involved in Proposition No. 2. Large issues are easier to debate. But, as in many cases in life, the devil is in the details. Notwithstanding criticism that the CRC didn’t do its homework, the CRC paid a lot of attention to detail. Here is just one example: Section 3.43(1)(e) designates the administrator as the official responsible for preparing and presenting the county operating and capital budgets. Section 6.20 designates that official as the official to whom county agencies and departments are to submit budget requests. Section 6.10(1) further specifically designates the Administrator (not the Auditor) as the official to prepare and present the budget to the council. RCW 36.40.010, 030, and 050 provide for this. Under our charter, the administrator is charged with the full obligation of budget preparation and presentation. Our auditor disagrees with the charter’s policy. She recognized that charter
Section 3.20(2), after listing various county offices (including the auditor) provides “These offices shall be re-created by this charter and, unless amended by this charter, shall have the same powers and duties as in the past … .” In our auditor’s view as expressed in writing to the CRC, the charter’s assignment of budget responsibility to the administrator has led to inefficiency. She asked that her statutory budget responsibilities be restored to her office. The legal and functional dynamics of separately elected and charter-appointed officials at the same level are such that neither can dictate to the other. Our prosecutor can’t resolve this, as both parties are his clients. For four years, our auditor to carried out her pre-charter budget function and our administrator ignored the charge placed upon him by the charter. The fifth year, our administrator sought to carry out his mandated duties resulting in confusion and inefficiency. The troublesome charter provision remains in effect today. The CRC agreed with the auditor’s policy analysis. Proposition No. 2 restores efficiency by deleting budget responsibilities from the executive and replacing them with proposed Section 4.41. Bill Appel CRC Member Waldron
No to CRC measures 1) Representation – Isn’t it better to actually know your representative? Voting for someone you know, because they live in your community versus having everyone select representatives that we have never met or may have only met during a campaign function? Proposition 1 has us voting for candidates that we may have never met and will allow other islands to help select our representative. 2) Spending – Isn’t it better to keep a structure that has led to lower spending increases? The six member council structure has demanded significantly lower increases in spend-
Please Join us for our Sixth Annual Cider Press Party 49 Deye Lane
Friday, Oct. 19 • 3-5:30 pm 376-6604
Page 5
ing AND has put in place reserves. During its last five years in existence, the three commissioner system proposed higher increases in spending and did not build reserves, even during some of our best economic times. 3) Getting the Job Done – Isn’t it better to have a council that is willing to tackle the tough controversial issues that face our community versus one that continuously kicks those issues down the road? The current council is tackling those issues. Yes sometimes it takes longer to get such a diverse group to a consensus or majority vote but don’t we want them to work for solutions that work hard for our equally diverse citizens? 4) Compensation – Haven’t we attracted qualified individuals under both systems regardless of compensation? We have dedicated council members who care about resolving the county issues so maybe there is still some truth in “public service.” 5) Leadership – Are we not better off having a
highly qualified professional running the day to day operations of the county versus a manager who may be worried about their job changing at the whim of the council? In these economic times we need to know we have the best person managing our precious tax dollars. Long and short of it is we all must ask “Are we in better shape today than the “good old way” days? I think we are, so I will be voting to REJECT Propositions 1 and 2 Charter Review! I hope you will join me in rejecting these propositions. Velma Doty Eastsound County-wide elections are not logical. The current method of voting only in your district ensures that all voters are properly represented on the council. This system provides objective and reasonable representation for all citizens. The existing model is similar to U.S. House of Representatives and is the best method for our county.
See LETTERS, Page 8
No Ferry service October 22- 26 No problem! Discounted seat fares at $59! Round-trip service to: Bellingham, Anacortes, Friday Harbor, and other San Juan Island locations! Please call for flight times and availability at 1-800-874-4434