Island Guardian

Monday, October 31st

County Needs A County Manager

ig_Kevin_Ranker-2 (14k image) (Official photo)

By Kevin Ranker

Last week the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) unanimously agreed to move forward with the necessary steps to hire a County Manager. This position has been formally and informally discussed here in our community for many years. It is clear to me that our County has grown to a size and scale that warrants this decision. It is clear to me that the position of San Juan County Manager is a position whose time has come. After much research and consideration, I am convinced that the creation of this position will establish a more efficient county government while at the same time engender a more positive working environment for all of our county employees.

As part of our commitment to move on the creation of this important position, the BOCC unanimously approved a budget to go to hearing that includes $125,000 for a county manager, office needs and support staff. Further, the transition plan we unanimously approved provides for responsibilities that include taking over from the BOCC both fiscal responsibilities, including budget leadership, and the direct management of the departments now under the purview of the BOCC.

Now, it is no coincidence that the Freeholders agreed with the BOCC regarding the need for a county manager. It is also no coincidence that the Freeholder's description of what a county manager should do shares the same primary duties as the proposal the BOCC put forward last week – fiscal budget responsibility and departmental management.

The current BOCC has been formally discussing the need for a county manager since February. As a matter of fact, this discussion goes back to the beginnings of my campaign, as taking the necessary actions to hire a county manager was one of my primary campaign promises. Last week's decision has been a long time coming and was not based on the outcome of the county charter, but rather on what is best for our community.

[more..]

Sunday, October 30th

"We the people!"

Our San Juan County Government Is In Meltdown!

ig_Pat_ODay-1 (10k image) By Pat O'day

How timely, the advent of the Freeholders and their blueprint for the immediate future of San Juan County governance. How frustrating it has been, as we witness two more departures this week from a Permit Center that daily falls farther and farther behind in its missions.

How frustrating to citizens of our county watching three sitting Commissioners dallying around, spending valuable time and resources, with furtive talk of a County Manager. Were it not for the Freeholders and the upcoming Home Rule Charter election, they would be ignoring this issue. So many problems this confused, and inadequate commission creates with alarming regularity. And now, their sudden desire to hire some kind of a manager? "BOCC To Hire Manager?" It's not unfair to be suspicious of their actions. They fight to avoid The Home Rule Charter, it's Amendment, and a showdown with the citizens of our county.

The good news is, the days of peculiar investments like gravel pits, Trash to Treasures, purchasing land improperly zoned for the use of the county, such irrational, knee jerk, ill conceived, expensive mistakes may finally be near an end. A qualified and experienced County Manager would simply have seen the folly of these notions and stopped them before they went too far.

The Home Rule Charter, and it's Amendment, calling for six part time Council Members, and a County Executive, will be passed by the voters November 8th. This thing called Home Rule, was created by the State Legislature as it became obvious the current structure of county government, which became law in the 1800's no longer met the needs of a modern county. Thus, Home Rule Charters are permitted so we as citizens may modernize the operation of our local governments. We will now take full advantage of this opportunity the law affords us. Thanks to the Freeholders we elected, and their exhaustive, non partisan efforts, we have before us a design that will bring a screeching halt to ever increasing friction, turnover, discontent, incompetence, misuse of our tax dollars, and our general frustration!

In defense of our current commissioners, they are caught in a system that no longer works. They are currently asked, in addition to other duties, to be skilled managers, and judges. The sitting Commissioners offer qualifications in neither department. Our new Home Rule model puts legalities in the hands of a Hearings Examiner, and day to day management becomes the duty of the new County Executive. And all at much less cost to the taxpayer! It is my hope that upon approval of Home Rule, the current commissioners will exhibit true community spirit, dedication, and morality. They can, accelerate the process, by taking a reduction in salary, and joining the new, part time, Council, for the balance of their terms. We know they resist the Home Rule Charter, but pray they will hear and respond to the voice of the people.

Home Rule! Six non partisan, part time, council members elected by only those they represent. A County Executive, new citizen rights to the initiative and referendum process, and a revue of the Charter in five years. It truly defines the terms, "A breath of fresh air" "A turn in the right direction" and "We the people!"

[more..]

Friday, October 28th

Campaign Finance Laws & Free Speech

By John Kramer

In America, a nation built on a rich history of free political speech, governments are now censoring political discussions in the guise of campaign finance reform. The dangers of government censoring political speech to stifle their opposition are unfolding right now in Washington state and elsewhere across the nation.

The Institute for Justice was in court this week to defend the rights of Washingtonians to speak out on important political issues and participate in the legislative process. The case, San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax, is an effort to prosecute Yes912.com (formerly NoNewGasTax.com)—the organization seeking to roll back a massive gasoline tax increase of 9.5 cents per gallon over four years—for failing to report favorable comments by popular radio talk show hosts as "in-kind" contributions. On Monday, the Institute appeared in trial court to defend against a motion to dismiss its counterclaims, which seek to declare that the prosecution violates the rights of free speech, freedom of association and due process of law.

Supporters of campaign finance laws claim that they seek only to counter the influence of money on politics and simply require disclosure, but don't affect anyone's right to speak. In practice, however, campaign finance laws are being used by the government to silence or intimidate speakers that the government doesn't like. Moreover, the next step in campaign finance "reform" will be for government to use these laws to try to influence media reporting of the news and eliminate alternative voices that do not tow the government's line. This is precisely what happened in Washington State, where municipalities that will benefit from the new gas tax, in an effort to intimidate vocal radio proponents of an initiative to repeal it, brought their action in conjunction with the initiative's political opponents. Moreover, in court on Monday (October 24, 2005), the lawyer for the municipalities suggested that discussions on talk radio shows should be treated as a contribution because "talk radio is different" in that hosts also "endorse products and do it live on their programs," thus apparently removing any protections available to other media personalities. In their pleadings, these municipalities argued that regulation is necessary because, by speaking about an issue of public importance to every Washingtonian, these talk radio hosts provide "constant exposure on the radio [that] is more than simply reporting the news and constitutes advertising for the [campaign],"—as if "reporting the news" is the only form of expression protected by the First Amendment.

[more..]

Thursday, October 13th

Bill Appel Letter & the Judicious Response from Gaylord

Bill Appel, evidently an experienced and skilled advocacy writer, takes honest and unassuming people unawares by beginning and ending his letter with conciliatory salutations to the Freeholders.Related Story & Letters However, this letter is not one written by a friendly intervener. The analysis it contains is presumptuous. Just the fact that the writer is a former attorney does not raise his opinion to the level of "legal" analysis. Rather, it is obvious that this letter is politically motivated and possibly a last ditch effort to derail the Charter Process. It seems that the detractors, having no substantive arguments against the Charter, are forced to resort to mere word choice technicalities to attack it.

Of course, the First Amendment to the Constitution allows Bill to indulge in intellectual exercise and express his opinions. However, his letter was sent in the form of a challenge to the County Prosecuting Attorney. The PA spent precious hours and tax dollars answering this frivolous
challenge.

Kudos to Randy Gaylord for his expedient response. Randy gives us a comprehensive legal analysis. The bottom line: The Charter (both the Basic and Amendment) is just fine as is.

Here are the facts:

1. Five attorneys including MRSC (Municipal Research Service Center) reviewed the Charter prior to its adoption by the Freeholders.

2. The record shows that the intent of the Freeholders was never in question. Never! Legislative intent is an important part of the interpretation of words in a legal document. The minutes of the public meetings recording the deliberative process are published and public. A legal scholar doing true legal analysis would have incorporated these into his analysis. An honest legal analysis would have acknowledged, where pertinent, Attorney General Opinions and Court cases that have already addressed his concerns.

3. The use of emotionally charged words like "Trojan Horse," fatally flawed," "dooms the county to chaos," "anomalous scheme," "take the County into uncharted waters," "Charter scheme deviates," and "threatens the legitimacy" confirm that this document is an advocacy paper rather than a neutral analysis by someone who, "in spite of misgivings . . .was willing to support the Charter." Compare this to the legal analysis by the PA. If Randy had taken the same tone, he would only have had to write, "Bull Shit!"

Nanae N. Nagaoka (Fralick), Esq.

(Ms. Nagaoka lives on Orcas island with her husband Richard Fralick, who is a former SJC Freeholder)

[more..]