Mitt Romney and Lovel Pratt lost the last election. But now I see that one of them didn’t get the message that her home district rejected her because of her support of the Critical Areas Ordinance and her history of closed meetings.
Last evening I returned to an answering machine message from someone that was obviously reading from a script. The message was to vote for Lovel and Lisa Byers because they have been endorsed by the Democratic Party and the Friends of the San Juans. At that point I used the “delete” button, because having two violations of our home rule charter in the same breath was enough enlightenment for the evening.
If I am correct, our charter has always designated our elections to be non-partisan, and that point was restated in the most recent amendment to the charter. Whether this duo actively pursued the endorsement is not important. They are using it.
Lovel has left the county with a pending law suit for her participation in meetings that should have been open to the public. If I am correct, the new council will have three members, two of which Pratt and Byers hope to be. So now comes the question, if these two are scheming to be a two-vote majority, has not the intent of the open meeting provision been violated in spirit, even though they have not yet been elected? It defies credibility to think that this thought has not passed through their minds. Else, why are the street posters for each candidate so frequently posted side by side?
The other four candidates in the primary have stated that they will not seek or accept endorsements from either the Democratic or Republican Party. Flaunting the provisions of our charter seems to me to be the basis for both Pratt and Byers to withdraw from the race. Short of that, voters can still withdraw their approval by voting for candidates who believe in the non-partisan provisions of the charter.
I’m voting for Marc Forlenza.
San Juan Island