The following is a verbatim response I sent to a proponent of the 5 commissioner proposal who has criticized my approach. After that is a bit more explanation.
................................
"I have your input, thank you for that. I am now seeking legal advice from an independent third party that represents neither you nor the port. This way I can be assured that the reading of the statute and the language of the question are both simple and clear. I want no part of an ambiguous effort. Simple, clear, legitimate and defensible - that is my goal. You asked for my leadership and you are getting it, what you won't get is your own special voice to do what you want. I take it very seriously that I represent the people of Whatcom County and to that end I will work for the greatest good for the majority. Again, you have asked for my leadership on proposing 5 commissioners and you will get my honest, hardworking effort as promised." (end of quote)
I will be bringing the correct resolution regarding a five commissioner proposal to our June 19th Port meeting. Given Mr. Jorgensen's own proposal at our last meeting, I believe the measure will pass and go on to the November ballot.
The resolution will ask for a five member commission with seats distributed among five new districts. With five districts I believe a clear message will be sent to the entire county that the Port of Bellingham represents the ENTIRE county and if the measure passes then we will ensure an equitable distribution of commissioners.
Those five districts should be apportioned equally and randomly by population ONLY, with no regard whatsoever to gerrymandering that can favor any particular viewpoint - especially since the purpose of 2 extra commissioners is to improve representation not create political stalemates, that would be ridiculous and should be avoided at all costs. The districts would have district only primaries as now, with county wide runs for each district's top two out of the primary.
In the coming week I will be working with independent legal counsel while simultaneously researching the effort that 4 other ports used to increase or attempt an increase to five commissioners. It is important to me that the legal vetting of the resolution be done carefully by people skilled in interpreting law.
Combined with the Port's legal staff opinion, we will have 6 legal opinions and/or precedents to guide the process. These 6 examples will inform the work in bringing a proper resolution to my fellow commissioners on the 19th. We will propose a properly worded ballot question that can survive a legal challenge if the measure passes in November; here in Washington we are all aware that badly worded ballot initiatives can be thrown out after an election.
It is no secret that I believe the push for five commissioners is a knee jerk reaction to some bone-headed decisions by your current commission, of which I am a member. However, it is not my place to decide for the citizens of this county how their governments will be structured, therefore, I have worked with the proponents to bring the question to the November ballot this year, 2012, for a vote by the people.
Regardless, new voices, experience and viewpoints will certainly inform the guidance of the Port of Bellingham so that it can continue to serve and succeed for the the people of Whatcom County. I have spent the past two and a half years working toward that end and hope to go on serving and working for the people of this county for some time to come.
Thank you to all who have read this post. I think it explains my position and that I am moving carefully to ensure the effort is above reproach. You may have your own opinion so please weigh in, let me know what you are thinking.
At http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/game-on, Mike suggests this post addresses my concerns over his actions. I invite readers here to judge that for yourself.
ReplyDeleteMike, it is apparent you didn't even read my article. Sorry, it's if it's too long.
I really thought you were a serious student of this stuff. I've been at it for decades, so I have a bit I can share. I thought, since it sounded like you were interested, I would crank out a beginning framework for discussing the government we want to avoid, what we want and how to achieve it. I at least hoped to spur some discussion.
Apparently you are not interested in academics or empirical studies or even discussion, since you have clearly made your decision. You have quickly hewed to the system proven to be most vulnerable to abuse and least likely to produce better policy outcomes.
Here's what: Do your homework and engage the discussion, or just skip it. Don't seize upon the first, most facile political scheme imaginable and ignore a century of political science. Sorry we brought the matter to the Port. Your and Walker's meddling is absolutely the last thing any of us wanted or Whatcom County needs. Just drop it and we will simply resume the petition. Don't hose up the ballot with a bunch of regressive, obstructionist Port BS. Just drop it and we will do it ourselves. If you can't lead, at least have the decency get out of the way.
Tip,
DeleteSo it's your way or the highway?
If a ballot resolution is put forward calling for five commissioners and five districts it would seem you got your way.
Your primary objection seems to be that you want two "at large commissioners." That would probably guarantee rather than simply make possible, Bellingham's control of the port, a port that belongs to ALL the people of Whatcom County.
Jack,
DeleteYou are a fellow student of government. Read the literature. Five districts will make the port less efficient, make it more vulnerable to pork barrel abuse and create two more incumbencies that will alway be more difficult to unseat. It is essentially more of the same system we have, but worse.
The literature suggests that adding two at-large positions to our three districts would bring broader perspectives to the issues, improve representation and increase voter and candidate participation.
Plus, redistricting will be problematic at best. At least, it's not going to happen overnight.
Having two at-large positions makes the commission accessible to more county residents more often. That means anyone can raise an issue at the port - even if they don't get elected. Anyway, how do at-large positions translate into Bellingham gaining a lock on the commission?
Look, It's not my way or the highway. I'm just not interested in two more districts. Three doesn't work. Why would five? As a lifelong student of good government, I am interested in a mixed system that has been proven to be more likely to produce better policy outcomes for the community as a whole.
What bugs me is that everyone keeps coming up with assertions for which so far no reasoning has been displayed. Maybe you can help. How do at-large positions benefit Bellingham without benefiting the county? What was ambiguous about the at-large wording, how is it vulnerable to challenge, and who on earth would challenge it?
It appears the at-large effort has been effectively torpedoed, so I will be respectfully withdrawing my involvement, except to offer my opinion from time to time. ;-) But seriously, I would love to hear someone actually address some of the issues.
Tip,
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of at-large for the following reasons:
(1) If the County wants to run people, they certainly can. Given that they have 60% of the votes in the election (I think it's 64%?), they could easily run and win "their" candidates.
(2) There is a thought that if there is not 5 districts that Bellingham has a disproportionate sway on elections. That said, I do
wonder where the majority of the economic development for the Port is at though? Is the majority of the economic development for the Port within city limits? If so, it might make sense to keep them at-large.
(3) Once the primary is past, the elections are essentially "at large" are they not? (I'm asking. I think they are but I'm not certain.)
(4) At large is faster and easier for voters to understand. Creating
entirely new districts takes time and causes confusion.
So, keeping in mind that I agree with you, your comment to Commissioner McAuley is filled with personal attacks. Since when did that work with anyone? We're lucky that McAuley has chosen to bring this forward and champion it. Berating him, in public no less, is no way to show your thanks for an honest effort. It might not be your ideal effort but since McAuley is the one that actually has the power to put it on the ballot, you might dry drizzling a little honey and see where that gets you.
Tip,
ReplyDeleteI've not read much to support more districts or fewer districts or at large vs district oriented commissioners. I suspect each is suspect in one way or another.
I guess one way of looking at the issue might be to speculate what might happen in the United States if 40% of our representatives and 40% of our senators were elected "at large."
If our guys were in it would be great but if the bad guys were in...
In actuality, I think it would be a disaster which is not to say what we have now is not a disaster.
Oh, well... I agree with Anne-Marie... Mike the the very person you should not be throwing stones at.
I prefer that the 2 additional seats be selected from any of the county council districts but I think it's worth stepping back and looking at how we elect county council members.
ReplyDeleteWe have 3 districts and each district has 2 representatives. The representative must live in the district and if there's a primary, the primary is district-only. In the general election, everyone in Whatcom County votes on each district. One of the members (currently Bill Knutzen) is at-large. That person can live anywhere in the county and if there's a primary, it is also county-wide. The result is that they are answerable to voters who live anywhere in Whatcom County - not just their district.
It makes sense to me that in adding 2 people, they'd be truly at-large and could live anywhere in the county. But either way, the November election for each port commissioner is county-wide. The real question on the 2 at-large v the 5 districts is where they live.
Here's how I understand the 5 port districts would function:
- each district would have roughly the same number of registered voters.
- each district would have 1 Port Commissioner living within that district
- depending on how the lines are drawn, an incumbent could get bumped in the redistricting
- if there's a primary, the primary would be district-only
- in November, the final election would be county-wide.
Here's how I understand the 3 in the council districts PLUS 2 new at large would function:
- each council district would have 1 commissioner residing within their distrct. One of them would have 3 port commissioners residing within the district or 2 of them would have 2. One district would have 1.
- in the primary, the 3 district representatives would be elected from within their district
- in the primary, the 3 at-large would be elected county-wide
- in November, all would be elected county-wide. All.
So since the November election would not be district-only, and each of the 5 would be elected county-wide, the argument that this would result in corruption (or more than exists today) doesn't seem accurate.
Tip, as I try to figure out your meaning, it seems that you assert that in November the election would be a district-only election. But that's not what the law provides. All would be elected county-wide in November and answerable to all voters in the county. That significantly reduces the potential of pork and pet projects.
I think the 5 districts increases voter confusion, I think adding 2 at-large more closely mirrors the county council elections, but when the ballots arrive with either 2 or 3 seats listed, the voters will vote.
(They will vote County-wide, for each seat.)
Here's the language on primary and general election voting for port commission. RCW 53.12.010:
"and (b) only the voters of a commissioner district may vote at a primary to nominate candidates for a commissioner of the commissioner district. Voters of the entire port district may vote at a general election to elect a person as a commissioner of the commissioner district."
I agree with the *intention* behind adding Port districts: Mike, from what you said, you want to see the broadest and deepest representation possible in the county. I agree with you on that. But I think you'll find you'll get that representation, regardless of where the boundaries are drawn or not drawn. What I meant when I said broad and deep representation was not *geographical* or merely an accident of address, but a diversity of voices, thoughts, and opinions that having two more colleagues could bring. Until you showed up, the Port was pretty much in a 3-person lockstep for decades and decades. You've made things interesting. Being a voice for leadership and change, you've inspired a new crop of people to join in and make the Port a more open, more functional place. That kind of diversity isn't tied to geography. My fear is that by niggling around on this issue, we'll end up losing the whole fight. This fiddling around creates a lot of space for behind-the-scenes shenanigans.
ReplyDeleteThank you to all for the comments so far and I truly appreciate the support.
ReplyDeleteThere are many points of discussion to address so if something seems to have been missed please chalk it up to the problem of this format rather than an intentional effort to ignore facts or avoid a difficult issue.
Tip suggests districts lead to pork barrel politics. The evidence Tip uses to support the problem of districts is the wrong body of work to draw from given that, as Lisa correctly points out, we don't have commissioners representing districts thanks to RCW 53.12.010. I am responsible to the entire electorate not just District 2.
As regards the issue of at large representatives. I agree there is a problem that a body with an odd number of representatives may suffer from districts based on party influenced gerrymandering. The "odd man out" in this case helps, in it's own limited way, to break up this problem.
We can avoid the gerrymandering by a reasoned approach with districts then drawn equally based on population. A reasoned approach that takes into account voices and consultation from Lynden, Ferndale, Sumas, Blaine, Glacier, Nooksack, Everson and all points in between.
While it's true the big economic gorilla in this county is Bellingham, 5 commissioners geographically distributed, like the 3 now, doesn't mean that one distinct area cannot provide more reps. Jim J lives in Blaine (which is actually a good thing) while Scott and I both live in Bellingham about 3 miles apart.
Districts don't guarantee wide distribution but do guarantee that my neighbor on one side and my neighbor on the other don't sit with me on the commission. BTW, I am quite aware that my scenario is ridiculous even if it's theoretically possible. But realistically, my neighborhood and part of Columbia alone could provide all 3 commissioners now.
Yes, 5 districts can be a challenge to create but that's no reason to simply take an easy way out. I like the districts idea to force a geographic distribution of candidates, then, like now, we put the best candidates out to a vote by the entire electorate.
Thots?
Mike, there is NOTHING 'knee jerk reaction' about OUTRAGE that serial meeting strategy and false accusations were employed rather than simply retiring to executive session to discuss an important personnel decision. There is NOTHING 'bone headed' about trusted director level staff implementing the serial meeting strategy, an elected official intentionally making such false accusations against a good man, or astute legal scheming to circumvent public process.
ReplyDeleteMike, the REAL issue here is that it is clear this is how other very important Port decisions are made, and this is how all Port business gets conducted.
QW - give me a call if you ever want to discuss any port decisions, business, direction, anything at all. I will tell you anything you'd like to know. 360-201-7199
DeleteI would point out that if you don't like behind the scenes conversations by your elected leadership then I suggest you vote against 5 commissioners. It is illegal for the 3 of us to discuss port business with each other outside of executive or open session - so far I have no reason to believe that has happened during my time on the commission. The state's auditors agree.
If there are 5 commissioners we can have outside conversations about port business anytime we choose because 2 won't make a quorum. 5 members guarantees behind the scenes conversations, it's legal and is already done by your other representative bodies.
Wow Mike, you really don't get it. You know me, and yes, I will call.
DeleteMike, would it not be simplest and easiest to just ask voters whether they prefer five commissioners. If the answer to that is "yes," then some debate can occur as to the flavor of representation.
ReplyDeleteThe actual drawing of districts could be very complex (the recent work by Whatcom's redistricting commission attests to this) and could consume a lot of time. If voters are happy with three, then the time is not worth it.
Tip is correct that complexity risks collapsing the ballot measure before its merits can be considered. Get your commissioners first. They will represent the entire county. Worry about how they're selected later.
Hey Quickwaves and Pat, thanks for weighing in.
ReplyDeleteThe State's Auditor gave a report on Tuesday that nothing illegal, serial or otherwise occurred in the lead up to Charlie's dismissal. Although I was probably his biggest supporter I am glad that nothing illegal occurred. What was boneheaded was the path the Commission chose to pursue.
Pat, the question I am trying to answer is relevant to Tip's assertions. He says his reading of the law says we can ask for 5 commissioners and make 2 at large in one question. Other legal experts disagree. Contrary to Tip's reading of the law, the legal review I have seen so far suggests that the question for five automatically defaults to 5 districts and a second question must ask for the 2 at large. I am endeavoring to find out who is right - Tip or the lawyers.
I don't feel that there is a complexity to the questions: one - should we have 5 commissioners, 2 - should we have two at large.
The recent redistricting was a challenge because it was based on party machinations not equity toward equal representation.
Mike, get down to brass tacks. Ask the auditor about your (the commission's) consideration and action, taken without public notice, rescinding your May 14 approval of a resolution to the Auditor. I'm going to. Beat me to it!
DeleteOh, BTW, call me anytime you want to discuss any port decisions, business, direction, anything at all. I will tell you anything you'd like to know! Give me a break!
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the default is 5 districts.
The issue at the last meeting - as I understand it - is that the initiative contained 2 separate issues. I don't know if it did. Many initiatives contain multiple amendments to many parts of code or law and that is legal if they fall under the same subject. This sure seemed to be 1 subject (expanding the port.) Here is the language: "Should the number of Port Commissioners be increased from three (3) to #ve (5) by adding two at-large positions?"
A good attorney familiar with this area of law needs to look at that and provide an answer.
But on the question of which is the default version - 2 at large or 5 new districts - here is the language:
"(2)(a) In port districts with five commissioners, two of the commissioner districts may include the entire port district if approved by the voters of the district either at the time of formation or at a subsequent port district election at which the issue is proposed pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board of commissioners and delivered to the county auditor.
(b) In a port district with five commissioners, where two of the commissioner districts include the entire port district, the port district may be divided into five commissioner districts if proposed pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board of commissioners or pursuant to a petition by the voters and approved by the voters of the district at the next general or special election occurring sixty or more days after the adoption of the resolution. A petition proposing such an increase must be submitted to the county auditor of the county in which the port district is located and signed by voters of the port district at least equal in number to ten percent of the number of voters in the port district who voted at the last general election."
To me it seems to say that 2 at-large is the default. It's the automatic when you move to 5 commissioners. "In a port district...where two of the commissioner districts include the entire port district, the port district may be divided into five commissioner districts if proposed pursuant to..."
In other words, if you have 2 at large, THEN you can break up into 5 districts IF the port commissioners resolve to do so or a public petition is passed. In fact, it seems to me in my plain, non-attorney reading of this that all the ballot needs to ask is this:
"Shall we increase the number of Port Commissioners from 3 to 5?"
And then those 2 would be at-large as that seems to be the automatic first step. The other comes IF you have 2 at large.
I prefer the 2 at large (which I see as the default) in part because of the risk of hijinks with creating all new districts. It's better to lay it open for the whole county to run for whichever of those 2 seats they'd like. That seems very fair. We'll still have the 3 from each district.
Spoiler!! Watch for Paul DeArmond's upcoming article at www.nwcitizen.com -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=871884MAJ
Readers may enjoy this rather explicit example of why Chmelik is a lying sack. He knew his single-subject attack on the petition was false and that the language crafted by Buckingham was well within the tolerance of the court, especially as it also fulfilled the subject-in-title rule? Recall his earlier pretense of reading from the statute to falsely inform the commission, repeatedly, that voting at-large representation would forever foreclose adding new districts.
Is he being paid by the public to stir up doubt and confusion from which only he will profit? Wow. Nice work if you can get it, I guess. Question: Is Chmelik incompetently unaware of this years WS Supreme Court rulings, or is he a bald-faced meddling liar, creating distractions with false legal issues while he bails money from the public trough?
I don't suppose there is any specific requirement that he hew to the public interest when serving the public as his client, but maybe there oughta be.
=====
"'[a]ll that is required [by the constitution] is that there be some "rational unity" between the general subject and the incidental subdivisions.'"
=====
There is no violation of article II, section 19 even if a general subject contains several incidental subjects or subdivisions.
====
6/19/12
ReplyDeleteMike, you made a promise up above that you would bring one resolution to today's port meeting:
"I will be bringing the correct resolution regarding a five commissioner proposal to our June 19th Port meeting. Given Mr. Jorgensen's own proposal at our last meeting, I believe the measure will pass and go on to the November ballot."
That is singular. One resolution. Yet today you put a second resolution on the table. Fortunately for everybody who wants to reform the port and get rid of the crooks and grafters, Scott Walker let #1311 die for the lack of a second.
#1311 was exactly what the Supreme Court clearly described as "log-rolling" which a form a ballot rigging to kill an initiative at the polls.
You owe the public an explanation. Who advised you to copy the corrupt hacks at Everett? This was not legal advice based on case law because the log-rolling, ballot rigging and other skullduggery down in Everett generated no case law.
So explain the who, why and when. Preferably in three sentences. It is perfectly all right for you to plead stupidity.
ps. Chmelik wasn't there with his hand up Walkers' ass making Scott the dummy to his ventriloquist act.
ReplyDeleteLucky for us. You nearly scuttled the adventure, matey. Ahar, belike. We'll be needing you to sign articles or you may be finding yourself marooned, ya swab.
So who connected you to the Everett shysters?
Yes, Mike, who did shove that Everett stuff down your gullet? You sure swallowed it. Hook, line and sinker. Impressive!
ReplyDeleteAlso, will you please send me the material from Chmelik, Sharpe and any others you referenced today? Or do I need to file a public disclosure request?
I figure if they were so willing to embarrass you, I should probably make it a bit embarrassing for them, too.
See? Friends gotta help each other out!
I'm also your friend. I'll buy you a drink at my cocktail lounge if you call me on the phone. I'm in the book. Hint: I just got back from all day in Seattle.
ReplyDelete