WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Record of Proceedings July 7, 2005

Transcription

1 0 0 0 WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Record of Proceedings July, 0. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Mick Moynihan called the meeting to order at :00 p.m. in the Upstairs Meeting Room, Courthouse Forest Street Annex, 000 N. Forest, Bellingham, Washington.. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ROLL CALL Present: Hue Beattie, Charlie Crabtree, Bill Crawford, Joe Elenbaas, Yvonne Goldsmith, Bertella Hansen, Polly Hanson, April Markiewicz, Mick Moynihan, Shannon O'Brien, Bill Quehrn, Renee Reimer, Orphalee Smith, Jeffrey Utter Absent: Kathryn Hanowell. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE, 0 MINUTES O Brien moved to approve the minutes. Markiewicz seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.. PUBLIC SESSION The following person spoke: Chet Dowe, Wood Fern Way, Bellingham, stated Mr. Johann couldn t be at this meeting because he is out of town, but the commissioners should behave themselves. (Public session continued later in the meeting.). SECRETARY S REPORT O Brien stated there was no report.. REVIEW OF DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO GO TO THE VOTERS This item was not discussed. Whatcom County Charter Review Commission, //0, Page

2 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS Elenbaas Proposed Amendment #: Shall the charter be amended to add a new sentence to the end of section.: Failure to comply shall be punishable by? Randy Watts, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated penalties aren t usually found in the charter. The charter gives the County the ability to adopt regulations. He does not recommend that a penalty be in the charter. This concept is not talked about anywhere. There is nothing that says it is illegal, but there is no charter or constitution that has a penalty in it. Quehrn stated he d asked that this item be placed on the table until he could look into it further, as a result of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. He wanted to know if the language in this section is sufficient to be able to tell the County that taking land that way wouldn t be right. From what he s learned from other attorneys, the Washington State Constitution is significantly different from the Connecticut Constitution. There are safeguards in the Washington State Constitution that would not require the charter to be strengthened any more than it already is. Therefore, he is comfortable with the section as it is. Beattie stated that if this item is moved for approval, the commission can vote it down and get rid of it. Otherwise, it can come up at another time. Quehrn moved to approve the amendment. Beattie seconded the motion. O Brien stated that regardless of the charter s authority, there are natural consequences in democracy for legislators who don t follow the law. That may be a criminal consequence or the consequence of not being reelected. She has a hard time with this amendment. Quehrn stated he can t imagine the County Council doing something as grotesque as what happened in Connecticut. There are remedies to that type of situation, such as a lawsuit. Unless there is a rogue individual, the County will have to represent itself if in a takings claim, not an individual councilmember. Watts stated that is correct. However, a person can be named in the suit. Quehrn stated this section is about protecting the rights of the people, not to beat up on an employee that someone doesn t like. Elenbaas stated the commission should revise wording. He moved to substitute the amendment on the table with the language change to section., generated implemented. Quehrn seconded the motion. Whatcom County Charter Review Commission, //0, Page

3 0 0 0 Elenbaas stated no one needs to be punished, but he wasn t sure how to proceed to amend this section. This issue was brought up, and people are concerned there are no teeth to protect individual rights. To protect those rights, there needs to be a punishment. The question is who decides who gets punished. There is an overall rule of law that the voters of the County adopted that says there needs to be a procedure in place before the County puts something onerous on people. If the Council wants to generate an ordinance, it s one thing. It s appropriate to go through a hearing process. It s a whole other matter to implement an ordinance. The means of addressing it should be included in the process of generating the ordinance. If people are going to be unduly burdened by an ordinance, there should be a mechanism to deal with the problem that identifies what being unduly burden might mean, how it might be taken care of, and the source of funding used to compensate the people. Don t implement the ordinance until all those things are taken care of. His alternative wording addresses his concern. Quehrn stated Commissioner Elenbaas s proposal addresses the public concern if proposed legislation were to unduly burden people. This might be a useful change that could mean a lot. Markiewicz stated she likes the word generated because generating an ordinance is the first step, before implementation. The County Council should take the impact into consideration when it is generating that change, not when it is in the process of implementation. Have that consideration from the start, not when the deed is done. Crawford stated generated is something done before open session. This amendment allows consideration after open session. Implementation follows after open session. Smith moved to amend the motion, generated and implemented. Hansen seconded the motion. Elenbaas asked if that language would require the Council to consider the impact in both steps. This provision has been in place for ten years, but no one has done anything about it. There is no record that the Council complied. If they are to approve Commissioner Smith s motion, it would be difficult to figure out the necessary steps. He hesitates in using both phrases. Reimer stated she is having a hard time with the word generated and how it pertains to an ordinance. The question is when generated applies, before or after the legislation is written. Markiewicz stated the referendum process is available to people who don t agree with an ordinance. The word generated is defined. The legislation is formulated and put forward, but not implemented. It is the process of putting something forward for public hearing and public input. Reimer asked if the intent of the motion is that legislation is generated and adopted, but consideration is given before it s implemented. O Brien stated the Executive branch takes care of things. The Prosecutor prosecutes if things aren t going as planned. The legislative branch is elected to represent the citizens and generate laws that take into consideration the needs of individuals as well as the whole, Whatcom County Charter Review Commission, //0, Page

4 0 0 0 what is best for society, and what s best for the earth. The executive branch implements those laws. It s the commission s job to protect the charter. They have a system of government that works. It has checks and balances. Utter stated the chronic concern he s heard is that the current word generated doesn t do what was intended. It hasn t been followed at all since it was voted in. Elenbaas stated that s been the testimony of the public and every councilmember. Every councilmember, when asked, said they never publicly considered this. O Brien stated that s not true. Utter asked how changing the wording is going to change the fact that it hasn t been considered. Beattie stated ordinances are drafted, not generated. Then, ordinances are adopted. He suggested, generated and implemented drafted and adopted. Moynihan stated he originally thought that this revision is unenforceable, and nothing could be done about it because the wording is so confusing. He agrees with Commissioner Beattie s wording. Hanson stated she also agrees with Commissioner Beattie s wording. Beattie moved to amend the motion to amend, generated and implemented drafted and adopted. Hanson seconded the motion. Beattie stated the public spoke about being unduly burdened when the recent moratorium was placed on Sudden Valley. The Council evaluated the burden before making its decision. It wasn t ignored. That is an instance when the Council considered the impact. Reimer stated the definition of drafted isn t clear. Allow the Council the process of drafting legislation. People can t be disallowed from even talking about drafting a law. Legislation has to be drafted to even know anything about it. It has to be put it into words before anyone can react to it. She suggested just using adopted. Moynihan stated he prefers drafted and adopted. Motion carried - with Goldsmith opposed. Elenbaas accepted the motion just approved as a substitute for his motion to go before the voters, to amend section., No regulation or ordinance shall be generated drafted and adopted without consideration. O Brien stated they must consider the number of amendments put to the voters. She asked if this item could be added to the scrub ordinance. Hanson stated she is more worried about the voters struggling to grasp and weigh all these issues. It s a huge burden they re putting on the voters. Voters have other things going on in their lives. Only put forward things that really need to be voted on. Whatcom County Charter Review Commission, //0, Page

5 0 0 0 Quehrn stated that the commission only reviews the charter once every ten years. The voters insisted on a charter review commission to look forward ten years. Six amendments in ten years is not an undue burden. O Brien stated substituting drafted and adopted for generated should be discussed as a scrub item. Elenbaas stated that if they must prioritize the amendments, put this item forward and drop the scrub items. There were more amendments than this that were put to the voters from past commissions. They don t need to worry about the number of amendments. If these items are important enough for the commission to discuss, they are important enough for the voters to render a decision. Hanson stated don t put forward little technicalities that can be dealt with otherwise. She asked if this is important for the public to go through. Moynihan asked if the County Council would automatically act on scrub items that the commission recommends. The commission has no assurance that the Council will act on scrub items that don t go to the voters. O Brien stated she is having a hard time understanding how this amendment will change things. Beattie stated it makes the intent of the section clearer. Moynihan stated it gives meaning to a meaningless phrase in the charter. Hanson stated the commission can t control the final decision. All they re doing is choosing words to clarify the meaning. Hansen stated it also means the Charter Review Commission feels this issue is important enough to keep an eye on the County Council for the next ten years. Moynihan restated the motion to go the voters, to amend section., No regulation or ordinance shall be generated drafted and adopted without consideration. Motion carried unanimously.. PUBLIC SESSION Elenbaas stated one of the main reasons Whatcom County has a home rule charter is because of John Servais services years ago. He thanked Mr. Servais. The following person spoke: John Servais, Bellingham, stated he worked with the original freeholders. It was an honor and privilege to serve. Jim Brooks, who is very conservative, got him involved. They worked well together. Don Hansey, a partisan republican, ran the original freeholders very even-handedly, as Chair Moynihan does, which is why the charter was successful. There are some similarities now with the group years ago, when they envisioned future Whatcom County Charter Review Commission, //0, Page

6 0 0 0 commissions tweaking the charter as needed. That s what this commission is doing. They ll see what happens at the ballot box.. OTHER BUSINESS Smith asked how many amendments are going to the voters. Moynihan stated there are six amendments. Beattie stated he d hoped to clarify the recall procedure, but it s complicated, and there isn t enough time. Quehrn stated Commissioner Hanowell drafted a letter from the commission to their State and federal legislators. He distributed a copy of the draft letter (on file). Markiewicz stated amend the letter to insert, United States citizens in the third paragraph. Also amend, national security electoral system. She doesn t see a connect between voter identification and national security. There is a connection with the electoral system. The commission concurred. Quehrn stated amend the letter, intentional criminal misuse. That s what people are more concerned about. Moynihan stated that in the law, intention and criminal are synonymous. The Border Patrol agents complain about aliens who show up with a voter registration card. They don t vote, but they get a voter registration card. They should not even be allowed to register to vote. Elenbaas stated the only electoral system is the Electoral College. The rest of it is the election process. Instead, amend the letter, national security election process. The commission concurred. Utter stated he agrees with the letter. However, in spirit they should be more inviting to voters because less than 0 percent of registered voters vote. This letter seems restrictive. Crabtree stated amend the letter, identification may does pose. The commission concurred. Moynihan stated all the commissioners names will be listed, and he or the Commission Secretary can sign the letter. Hansen stated the commission will meet at her house next week for a potluck social. 0. ADJOURN Whatcom County Charter Review Commission, //0, Page

7 0 Elenbaas moved to adjourn the commission sine die. Goldsmith seconded the motion. Beattie stated this would be the time for any commissioner to change their votes on any amendment. Motion to adjourn the commission sine die carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at : p.m. Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary The Commission approved these minutes on July, 0 Shannon O Brien, Commission Secretary Mick Moynihan, Commission Chair Whatcom County Charter Review Commission, //0, Page