Island Guardian

Tuesday, November 28th

Damned If They Do; Damned If They Don't

By Gordy Petersen

It appears that the three sitting council members can't do anything right when it comes to the Charter. They will never be able to satisfy some "home rule" proponents who advocated a "revenue neutral" Charter.

Whether you agree or not with all the costs attributed to the Charter the fact is that the Charter calls for changes that are expensive to implement. It is not "revenue neutral". Many of the costs are real. And so is the finger pointing.

The former Commissioners (now Council members) were criticized because they were not expert professional managers. They were told that they were incapable of doing that part of their job. They offered a solution by proposing to hire an Administrator.

Because they actually spent the money as planned for a professional Administrator and staff and attributed that cost to the Charter they are criticized for doing something "unfair" because they were going to spend that money anyway. Even though the Charter required this expenditure some think the cost should be blamed on some hidden agenda of the Council.

If they had not provided an office and staff for the Administrator they would have been accused of undermining the will of the people. Because they did they are accused of causing the costs to go up so they can blame it on the Charter.

If the Charter costs money to implement it is their fault because it was supposed to be "revenue neutral". If they had done nothing to facilitate the implementation of the Charter they would have been accused of incompetence and intentionally setting-up the new government to fail.

The fact is that Charter costs are significant. It was misleading to say that the Charter would reduce the cost of government. Some Freeholders are in denial about this fact. Therefore it must be the fault of the old Council because they "opposed the Charter and have a vested interest to see that it is not successful." They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If the people want to reduce the cost of government they need to begin now. Shame on us if the proposed budget gets approved "as is". I challenge the new Council members to step up and put the brakes on spending as soon as possible.

[more..]

Wednesday, November 22nd

Bogus! - Costs Attributed to Charter

By Richard Fralick

An imperative of the 1st full County Council will be to implement the Charter consistent with the will of the people who voted it into place. The Freeholders intended charter government to be, at least, revenue neutral, and saw, in the long run, potential for major savings. Of course, they anticipated some one time costs. However, some of the costs recently attributed to Charter implementation are so preposterous that we are compelled to take exception.

Remember that the three incumbent Council Members opposed the Charter and have a vested interest to see that it is not successful. One way to do this is to make decisions that cause the cost of county government to go up and blame it on the Charter.

True, most obvious transition cost: Salaries paid to the new County Council. While the three newly elected and one re-elected council member will receive $32,000 appropriate to their half-time primarily legislative positions as determined by a Citizens' Salary Commission, our two incumbents will receive $70,000. That means Kevin Ranker and Alan Lichter together will receive nearly $95,000 annually more in salary and benefits than they otherwise would. While state law does not allow for an incumbent's salary to be reduced during his term of office, either or both could agree to reimburse the County the difference. Thus far, neither has indicated his willingness to do so. This $95,000 additional Charter expense will be borne by the County through 2008 until the two incumbents current terms expire.

Costs initiated by current County Council: Significant increases in wages and benefits for their staff. Their reasoning: twice as many council members. What they did not factor in: half as much work. An additional $23,000 in compensation and benefits will result from this decision. Though specifically prohibited by the Charter, the current Council continues to interfere with the administrative branch of the County. Such interference prevents realization of some of the efficiencies made possible by the Charter and has a cost.

Unfair Costs: On October 24, 2005, the former Board of County Commissioners unanimously agreed to hire and budget for a County Administrator and an Assistant. These costs are real but should not be attributed to the Charter since these positions were created prior to the charter's approval.

Bogus Costs: While some members of the current County Council have suggested and seem keen on attributing half the cost of acquiring the Carlson building and its remodel to the Charter, this is simply bogus. The need for additional space to accommodate congestion in the courthouse has been on the agenda for some time. The acquisition of the Carlson building meets this requirement and costs incurred in purchasing this building cannot be linked, within reason and honesty, to the passage of the charter. Nothing in the Charter compelled the purchase of this building and nothing in the Charter is forcing the Council to spend additional money to refurbish this building.

During the campaign to pass the Charter, Si Stephens, SJC Auditor since 1980, agreed and said on the record, "If properly implemented, the cost of charter government will be no more than the current structure." In September 2006, when asked the same question Si said his position was unchanged and added, "…in fact, the charter form of government should, in the long run, save the county money." We agree.

On November 28, 2006, we the people of San Juan County will, for the first time, be represented by a non-partisan council of six members as created by the Home Rule Charter. Henceforth, four affirmative votes will be required for the Council to pass any measure or ordinance. All the newly elected members of the Council, through their campaign discourse, have shown that they are well aware that when the citizens of San Juan County voted for the Charter, they were voting for more effective and cost-efficient government.

The full new Council is hereby challenged to sharpen their pencils, review policy, enact, and sometimes undo legislation to take full advantage of the efficiencies made possible by the charter structure. We look forward to a new era of careful deliberation, cooperation and results. The people of San Juan County should have the government they voted for at a fair price. We deserve no less.

(Richard Fralick lives on San Juan, is a former Freeholder and the current Chairman of Citizens for Charter Implementation)

[more..]

Thursday, November 16th

CC to take a position on Global Warming?

Now that our paid County Council has solved the problems in Iraq with their advisory vote, they are now free to move forward with more pressing county matters. It appears that the next item on the agenda is Global Warming. Since the planet has been steadily warming since the last Ice Age, I guess they think that a resolution or an ordinance of some sort will solve the problem. I commend them on this noble effort. Then San Juan County can more on to other county problems, like; North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs, and the genocide in the Sudan.

Once our Councilmen have solved these problems, maybe we can get reimbursement from the UN to cover our costs for the time spent by our paid representatives solving these international issues. Then the Council can start working on additional National and State issues. I am sure that the US Congress and our State House will be more than happy to cover our costs for the time our Council spends solving these many problems and issues. Imagine the money we can save the taxpayers of the United States, Washington State, and specifically San Juan County.

Since we now have a Home Rule Charter, perhaps we can start an Initiative to form a group of say, six people, drawn from the citizens of San Juan County, to work on our local problems and issues. I suggest that we elect them from the Districts that were formed as a result of the adoption of the Charter. We would probably need to have a special election, but with all the money we saved the UN et al, one would think that the voters would be more than happy to pay for a special election. Can you imagine having a group of citizens, elected by the people, spending the preponderance of their time working for the people of San Juan County?

What an imaginative concept.

[more..]

Friday, November 10th

Impacts Of Whale-Watching Boats

By Mark Anderson

In a letter written by San Juan Island whale watch operator Bill Carli, he said two things which operators have been saying for ten years.
Here is the first: "There is no scientific evidence that whale-watching boats have a negative impact on the whales."

I am here listing a fraction of the recent scientific papers showing direct negative impacts of boats on whales:

Lusseau, D. 2004. The hidden cost of tourism: detecting long-term effects of tourism using behavioral information. Ecology and Society 9(1): 2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art2/

Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Dec. 2005 Underwater Acoustic Habitat Technical Memorandum. Contract submitted to NOAA

Williams, R, D. Lusseau and P.S. Hammond 2006. Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biol. Cons. 133:301-311

Williams, R, and E. Ashe 2006. Northern Resident killer whale responses to vessels varied with number of boats. NOAA Fisheries Contract.

Bain, D.E., R. Williams and D. Lusseau 2006. Effects of vessels on behavior of southern resident killer whales (Orcinus spp.) NMFS Contract Report.

Bejder, L. et. al. 2006. Decline in relatiave abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed to long-term disturbance. Cons. Biol.

We are posting a bibliography of over 20 papers in addition to these, on our site, all showing negative impacts of boats on whales.

Knowing even the possibility that boats harm whales, how could any whale watch operator not take the personal responsibility to learn the science on this issue? Indeed, every paper ever published on the question shows only negative impacts of boats on whales.

Here is the second most-common whale watch operator statement: "If I felt I was causing any stress or in any way being harmful to the orcas, I would quit doing whale watching tours today."

I am challenging Bill, and his fellow operators, to be true to their word. Now you have the proof. Do you have the courage of your convictions? The science is clear: boats cause whales to swim further and faster, raising their metabolic rates (stress), requiring more food, impairing their sonar, while simultaneously making catching food much more difficult. Boats are the single covariant, along with lowered fish count, that correlates with increased orca death rates. One orca has been killed, and one injured, from direct boat strikes.

In times of low Chinook count, boat harrassment doesn't just harm whales, it kills them.

Don't blame toxins.

Our whales are dying with ribs showing. Toxins don't cause adult whales to starve; boat harassment, linked with low fish count, does. Toxins cause low sperm count, as another whale watcher recently pointed out; this is the only problem our whales don't seem to have, since we have plenty of babies. As Doug McMaster, then head of the NMFS Marine Mammal Laboratory, said to operators years ago: "this population decline is not caused by toxins."

Will you now quit? Others have, and with honor.

I hope that every whale watch operator will consider it his or her personal responsibility to read the science on this question, and to make a personal decision about the ethics of continuing something with proven negative impact on the orca.

And for those of you who will not stop, for whatever reasons; please consider an organized reduction in days, and times of day. This isn't about proving your lobbying power: it's about losing our local whales.

I hope that you, Bill, and your co-operators will do the right thing. It's time.

(Mark Anderson is the Chairman of the Orca Relief Citizens' Alliance, and was a co-founder and the creator of the Whale Museum in Friday Harbor. His day job is the CEO of Strategic News Service® (SNS) and its consulting practice, Technology Alliance Partners (TAP), and is also the chairman of the Future in Review (FiRe) Conferences.)

[more..]

Thursday, November 2nd

The Time Is Finally Right

By Becky Rusnak

I am writing to anyone who has an interest in making San Juan Island a safer place to live and love. With the recent news of Chief Bill McLaughlin's resignation, coupled with the current recruiting efforts of the Town of Friday Harbor to find a Fire Chief, this is the perfect time to encourage the Town of Friday Harbor and San Juan County Fire District #3 Fire Commission to merge the two departments under positive, well-respected, and experienced leadership.

Chief Robert Low currently holds the position of Fire Marshall for SJI. Chief Low was Fire Chief for the Town of Friday Harbor Fire Department for many years. I had the opportunity to work under Chief Low's Command and I found his experience and leadership to be invaluable. Chief Low had complete respect from his firefighters and officer corps – something that is essential in the fire service.

Among Chief Low's accolades as Fire Chief include the fact that he was selected to participate in a Leadership in the Fire Service seminar presented by the Washington State Patrol Field Operations Bureau and The Office of the State Fire Marshal. Participation in the event was by invitation only and was taught by nationally acclaimed Phoenix Fire Department Chief Alan Brunicini.

I once heard Chief Low say that "while we are fighting a fire, we tend to forget there is someone standing there watching things go terribly wrong in their lives. We need remember that our job is much more than just putting the fire out". For me, this hits the nail on the head about who we need as our SJI Fire Chief – someone who is technically capable of "putting the fire out" and who understands the "human side" of a catastrophe.

Chief Low "practices what he preaches". He coordinated and participated in building a wheelchair ramp on a freezing cold winter morning for a citizen who called us for a chimney fire the week before. She didn't ask for a ramp, but Chief Low recognized that she needed one and he built it just the same.

He rebuilt a garage that was destroyed during a 4:00 am fire for a citizen. She didn't ask that the garage be rebuilt, but Chief Low knew it needed to be done.

He spent countless nights on the Friday Harbor boat doc just to make sure those returning from a rescue returned safely.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. We have the perfect person to provide leadership to take care of our homes, our property, our pets, and our lives right in Friday Harbor. So take a look at your house, your car, your antique china, your dog or cat, your child, your neighbor – and ask yourself what you can do to make SJI a safer place.

I encourage the Town of Friday Harbor and San Juan County Fire District #3 to merge Fire Departments under the leadership of Chief Robert Low. The time is finally right. It's not about money. It's not about politics. It's about who can lead the nearly 100 volunteers while understanding the human impact of tragedy. Chief Low can do that.

(Becky Rusnak is the former Human Resources Director for San Juan County)

[more..]