CRC member says ‘no’ to changes | Guest column

Published 10:14 am Thursday, October 4, 2012

by ED SUTTON

Orcas member of the Charter Review Commission

We have all read many letters about the proposals of the CRC to amend the County Charter.

I was a member of the Charter Review Committee, and, in retrospect, I have concluded that there is no compelling reason to change the structure of the current charter. The Orcas Council representative, Patty Miller, asked the most pertinent question, “Did you define the problem?” No, we did not!

Comments and testimony from many citizens, including former and current council members, did not build a convincing case suggesting that we revert to the old structure of three full-time commissioners.  I would suggest that the comments were somewhat evenly divided between former commissioners who preferred the “old way,” and the recent council members who testified in favor of the current charter format of six part-time members. I voted against submitting the ballot proposals because I concluded that the testimony did not support unwinding the effort of the freeholders to create a better government that would result in improved governance.

Frankly, I think that the CRC missed an opportunity to build on the efforts of the earlier charter group. There was a pre-determined, orchestrated drive to unwind the changes that were approved by the county voters in 2005 by a margin of about 60 percent. Also, the CRC did not consider the costs or consequences of the process of reconverting our government to a three-member council.

I think that the most peculiar aspect of the arguments to revert to a three-member council that would be elected county-wide was the complete disregard for the work of the redistricting committee. The U.S. Constitution requires a census every 10 years and a redistricting of representation to assure the “one person, one vote” provision of the Constitution. The Constitution does not say “except” when you live on an island.

The county was directed to balance the representation by council voting district to meet that requirement. I would imagine that Doug Pearson and his two colleagues must be frustrated that their volunteer efforts on behalf of the community were totally disregarded by the CRC. The challenge of legal counsel for the CRC that this matter has been settled in the U.S. Supreme Court is disingenuous.  We all know that august body is capable of some very strange decisions.

So, I must conclude that the current charter is not dysfunctional  and doesn’t need to be fixed. I will vote no on ballot proposition number one to amend the county charter.

Part two

Proposition #2 of the CRC proposals to amend the county charter is difficult to analyze because valid arguments can be made to support the current charter language or the amended version as well. The intent of the original charter was to curtail involvement and “meddling” by council members in the administrative functions of county government. Notably, in granting executive powers to the council in Section 2.31(2)(b), the amended proposal allows the council to “manage all administrative offices and functions.” Oops! Section 2.42, however, states that no individual council member can act unilaterally with any county employee without being “duly approved by a majority of the county council.”

I honestly can’t state that the council is precluded from any administrative interaction with county employees. That was the CRC’s intent. The conflict in our discussions was directed more to the grey areas in which administrative departments such as the CDPD are involved in creating legislative ordinances for County compliance with state and federal mandates. The CRC is proposing that there be more oversight of and direction to these departments on such matters.

Our government is a representative democracy and, as such, those representatives should be totally accountable to the voters and have ALL of the authority and responsibility to oversee the governance of San Juan County. The voters have not elected the current county executive and that person should NOT be able to act independently of the council’s direction. Senator Kevin Ranker spoke recently to this issue.  This is a very difficult matter to resolve – and very dry to discuss with you all.

The question, and choice for the voters, is whether specific direction on such issues as the CAO should originate with the council OR be developed from the administrative side of county government. The CRC recommends, and I support, that the COUNCIL direct (not implement) all development of ordinances and compliance with state and federal mandates. Should the council have all responsibility, authority and accountability as your elected representative to determine the nature of our governance as we move forward into a rapidly changing future? If you agree, then you should vote YES for Proposition #2.