09/29/2005: "Jeff Bossler Disagrees With Ludwig"

Editor:

As one of the Freeholders who worked with Steve Ludwig, I am deeply saddened by his opposition to the Charter (One Freeholder's Minority Report) that he himself has done so much good work on. Steve was an attentive and deeply present participant of the process. Although many of his views were squarely in a distant minority, we made every effort to hear him, and to accommodate his concerns where possible.

Many of us were shocked when he left The Board near the end. I, as a supporter of the six-member council, personally reached out to him to get him back for at least the last meeting, which he did attend.

That said, I have some real differences with his inaccurate portrayal of the charter, and troubling questions as to the manner in which his opposition is being expressed at this time. I will address only a few of them here.

First, he seems to have a misunderstanding of what a charter can actually address. "Protection from urbanization, campaign finance reform, restrictions on the ways the County incurs indebtedness", and other such issues are legislative issues for the legislative branch, not for the freeholders. A better functioning and more accountable and transparent county government will aid the public in tracking and correcting these issues.

Steve should refer to Section 1.50 of the proposed charter which states; "Although powers are delegated to the three branches, the right and obligation to oversee the functions of government shall be retained by the Citizens of San Juan County." That's right, the citizens have the "right and obligation" to oversee the functions of government.

As he desires, "to restrict elected representatives to discovering and obeying the will of the majority" is exactly what the six member council does. It ensures that a more representative, diverse and in-tune legislative body exists for the benefits inherent in a more accurate cross-section of the county's electorate. Why would he oppose this?

I know human nature, but am suspicious of someone like Steve who is wonderful at coming up with ideas on how everyone and their grandmother can pervert or corrupt the system. In fact, I always wonder about how far this type of person would go to fix this conundrum. What ends justify the means? Steve speaks so eloquently about the "will of the majority" yet he opposes the majority will of the duly-elected Board of Freeholders?! He seems to hold his minority position like that of a poor sport!

In the real world, being genuinely heard as the minority and getting it all your way are two totally different things. To oppose this charter because it isn't entirely what one wishes is somewhere between martyrdom and shooting oneself in the foot. This calls into question Steve's rhetoric, "the will of the majority", when compared to his unwillingness as a minority representative to work with the "will of the majority."

Steve is right when he says that "quick fixes" don't work. The proposed charter and its' amendment are big steps in the right direction, even according to Steve. It was not intended to be a "quick fix", but it gives ordinary citizens the ability to affect change in many ways which we now do not have. For a party member espousing inclusion, peace, and a green Earth for all, it's difficult for me to see a "my way or the highway" doctrine emerging from this candidate. Don't squander your vote in self-righteousness . . . . I know you can do better!

Jeff Bossler
Orcas Island