Current news
Government News
Political News
Service Organizations
Editorials
Obituaries
Guest Editorials
Business
Real Estate
Environment
Weekly Nag
Letters to Editor
To Contact the Editor
|
|
#5 - Open Questions To Candidates
The Island Guardian is sponsoring weekly questions to the county council candidates, and will publish their responses; and responses of the voters to their answers.
Question Number Five:
Some council members have expressed concern that paid employees of special interest groups sit on one, or more, citizen advisory groups Do you share this concern? Why?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
================================================
Bruce R. Orchid
I do not share the concern that some council members might have that some citizen advisory groups have members who are paid employees of a special interest group.
I can think of several instances where I would welcome the input from experts: for instance if I were studying the formation of a County-wide Arts Council, as I did in 1990, I would certainly asked the local art centers to send a Board member and their executive director to offer advice. I would value both the opinions and recommendations of the non-paid more member as well as the paid staff person. In fact I appointed Tom Luft, from San Juan Sanitation, to serve on the Solid Waste Advisory committee in 1989. Who else has better advice?
The key here is advisory. Recommendations come from these citizen groups, but the legislative body makes the decision and a good council member would not only listen to the advisory opinion, but also public opinion, professional advisors, as well as the law as it might pertain to the issue! Recently I have been asked what my position is on this issue or that, my answer being, I am a good listener, will seek input and advice, and will only make a decisions after well thought out study and contemplation, based on that advice, input and the law! Certainly I have my own opinions on issues, but I let go of those as I study any issue in front of me. I did so as a County Commissioner, as a School Board Director, and I will continue that as a County Council member! -Bruce Orchid
================================================
Gordy Petersen
Yes, I am concerned about stacking committees with people who are paid to represent the interest of their employers. These committee members don’t get paid to compromise.
This is a fairly recent phenomenon. I have served on many volunteer committees in the past where members had diverse interests except no one was paid. The committee’s work was completed successfully because everyone wanted to accomplish the same goal. This is not the case now because compromise is not possible when some special interest group is invested in a specific outcome.
The biggest problem I see is that volunteerism is disappearing. The county has begun a trend to hire people to serve on committees. There are now many County employees on what used to be volunteer committees. I disagree with this policy and in my opinion the committee should be disbanded if there is no public interest. -Gordy Petersen
================================================
Alan Lichter
Even non-affiliated citizens will join committees because they have a special interest or special perspective on issues. My point is that there is no such thing as "objectivity," and therefore I'm not overly concerned about employees of special interest groups sitting on committees, unless they are obviously and overtly pushing their employer's agenda.
The crucial factor in selecting members of a committee is to assure as wide a range of ideas and thinking as possible, rather than searching out volunteers with the least amount of bias. -Alan Lichter
================================================
Lovel Pratt
Citizen advisory groups provide an important service to San Juan County. I believe that decisions should be made with plenty of public participation, and that the respectful engagement of people with varying views and interests promotes effective and responsive solutions. Advisory committees provide a forum for citizens with diverse goals and understandings to learn about an issue and formulate recommendations that take into consideration a broad range of views.
In this question’s phrase ‘paid employees of special interest groups’ I would also include those people who participate on advisory groups because of their jobs. In addition to the employees of organizations such as the San Juan Builders Association and Friends of the San Juans, we should consider the land use attorneys, farmers, permitting service providers, realtors, water service providers, and others who participate because of their work, in addition to their interest and desire to provide public service.
The County Council would be hard pressed to fill all the advisory groups’ positions solely with citizens who have no vested interest through their paid work/profession. It can also be a tremendous boon to have expert participants on advisory committees. For example, the County could not afford to hire Ken Sebens, Director of the University of Washington’s Friday Harbor Labs to spend innumerable hours advising on marine issues, which he does voluntarily on the Marine Resources Committee.
If elected, I will work to appoint advisory groups that include as diverse and broad a range of stakeholders as possible, in addition to geographical (island) representation. San Juan County is fortunate to have so many concerned and dedicated citizens who are willing to serve on advisory committees. - Lovel Pratt
================================================
Howard Rosenfeld
Charter Completion activity has taken a lot of Council and staff time during the last 1½ year. Bringing our committees under the Charter has brought up a number of issues, including this one. Ideally, it might be better to have unpaid citizens. But even unpaid citizens can have agendas.
This is a mixed bag that cuts both ways. If the paid member represents your group, you like it, and visa versa. Bottom line, the Council needs to carefully consider each candidate when making appointments, and try to appoint the best person. The Council has taken steps to advertise all vacancies, and do more interviewing. Applicant affiliations, paid and unpaid, need to be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, there is often no choice. Sometimes we’re lucky to get even one applicant. There are currently open seats on some important committees. For instance, we’ve been advertising for months for the Town seat on the County Planning Commission.
Many people haven’t the time for these commitments. Then, because we’re a county of islands, the ferry schedule requires most County committees to meet during the day. By contrast, most Town of Friday Harbor committees, made up of locals, meet in the evening. This makes it much easier for those who hold jobs to participate.
At least paid employees of special interest groups can attend County committee meetings regularly, sometimes putting in much extra time. They are knowledgeable, and they are really interested in even the routine, and sometimes boring, but necessary, aspects of committee work. -Howie Rosenfeld
================================================
Fay Chaffee
Citizen advisory groups, or committees (CACs), should be representative of various points of view. There is no official or implied bias against paid employees of special interest groups being part of these groups. Rather, various governmental writings and guidelines about CACs make the following statements (the “agency” would be the county government in this case):
It (the CAC) is democratic and representative of opposing points of view, with equal status for each participant
If membership is not fully representative, an agency should encourage unrepresented groups to attend or seek their input in some other way.
Diversity in viewpoints is a plus, to ensure full discussion.
A CAC does not encompass all points of view. By virtue of being representative, it is never all-inclusive. A CAC’s voice may be skewed if it does not represent all stakeholders and the general public. It may be difficult to represent minority interests.
When considering the advice of such groups, the County Council must always be cognizant of the makeup of the committee, be aware if divergent points of view are �" or are not �" represented, and use their counsel accordingly. As a County Council member, it will be incumbent upon me as well as the balance of the Council to be highly sensitive to these matters. -Fay Chaffee
================================================
Lisa Guard
Citizen advisory groups spend many volunteer hours weighing important information that helps to guide our future. “Citizen” should mean exactly that, not a paid employee of a special interest group. Special interest groups are just what they claim to be, specialized in their area. This knowledge may allow them to twist or manipulate the regular citizen with facts that are pertinent to their cause. Advisory groups need to be balanced with all the facts that they are studying to make the best choices and decisions for our county. - Lisa Guard
================================================
Daniel Miller
Indeed, it is very interesting that some members of citizen advisory committees are paid members of special interest groups. I too am concerned with this practice.
I do not think that members of citizen advisory committees should be paid members of special interest groups. the slots on the citizen advisory committees are supposed to be taken by citizens in the community that are concerned about policy but are not paid, are they not. For example, on the ferry advisory committee their probably should not be folks that are paid by the Washington state department of transportation. - Daniel Miller
================================================
Richard Fralick
Active, informed members of our community can provide valuable contributions to the public process. I do not have a problem with employees of special interest groups sitting on a citizen advisory group provided that (1) there is full disclosure as to the person’s affiliation and compensation arrangements, (2) participants are chosen based upon their expertise, especially on those boards that deal with technical issues, and (3) no one person (or group) is allowed to dominate the venue. Affiliation with a special interest group, in and of itself, should not automatically qualify anyone for a position on an advisory group. =Richard Fralick
================================================
Mindy Kayl
Failed to respond
Letters On Petersen & Lovel & Campaign Signs
---------------------------------------Signs Come Down!
To the Editor:
I would like to thank Helen Chapman King for bringing my attention to my campaign signs that were larger than allowed by county code. I have removed those signs and replaced them with ones that meet the requirements.
My apologies to everyone for this mistake!
Lovel Pratt
Candidate for County Council, District 1
---------------------------------------Lovel's Signs Are Illegal!
To the Editor:
I would question voting for a candidate for County Council who has violated the requirements for political signs in the San Juan Islands. All candidates were given a copy of the sign ordinance. The legal limit is 6 sq. feet.
The Lovel's sign by the Oak is almost twice that size! It is a billboard compared to others. I question the right to place signs on County roads or private property without permission. Gordy Peterson's signs are all on private property, and has received permission from the property owners. That's the way he does things.
Lovel Pratt now states regarding her signs: "Because I value the beauty of our islands and want to support and enhance our natural environment I did not purchase yard signs...I do not want to clutter up the roadsides with repetitive signs that become a visual blight. Some supporters are joining me to hand-paint a few signs with recycled materials. Let me know if you want to join us with your exterior paint remnants, drift wood, and/or scrap lumber".
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is a sign ordinance so these political signs don't get out of hand with every candidate's idea of what is a visual blight, what is attractive, what is not, or that large brightly colored, hand crafted folksy signs are better than professionally made!.
Who do you want serving you on the County Commission? Someone who evades the law for personal gain, or someone who respects it? I support Gordy Peterson for County Council, a man of taste and ethics.
Helen Chapman King
San Juan Island
---------------------------------------And the Lovel Signs???!
To the Editor:
Re: Sign complaints:
I find the "Burma Shave" type signs rather amusing and a departure from the standard political
"name only" signs all over the island. I find it doubly amusing that yesterday there were large
colorful homemade signs promoting a vote for Lovel Pratt.
How do you feel about those Megan?
Helen King
San Juan Island
---------------------------------------Mr. Petersen, Take Down Those Signs!
To the Editor:
Some new Burma-Shave-style signs appeared on roadsides last week with the message “If you don’t want your taxes to go from 10% to Forty, vote for Gordy”. The County Council has no control over property taxes or state sales taxes, which make up the vast bulk of the taxes we pay; in addition, voter-passed state initiatives have placed severe limits on tax increases. The Council controls only very minor additional fees. To imply that some Council candidates might be able to impose (even if they were inclined to) steep tax increases if elected is silly. This is just scare tactics.
I’d like to hope that voters will choose a candidate based on who is qualified and shares their values, not on whoever achieves maximum name-recognition with roadside signs. I suggest that voters read the candidates’ responses to questions in the Journal, IslandGuardian.com, or SanJuanIslander.com, and let those guide their choice, and ignore signs that are a visual blight or that insult our intelligence. I am voting for Lovel Pratt: a thoughtful, intelligent, and dedicated public servant with a proven record of service to our community.
Megan Dethier
Friday Harbor
( Gordy explains: A smart voter needs to be informed. It is important to read all available candidates responses to media questions and compare experience and judgment. For example Lovel Pratt stated in the Journal July 23rd, In order to provide housing for those who can't afford it she supports using the sales tax. She supports a Real Estate Excise Tax, and would vote to place a tax on large buildings. If the Council raises local sales taxes that could be a huge problem for local business.
The County Budget increased 10% in 2008. 2 weeks ago the Council voted for the concept to borrow 3 million to buy a dock at Orcas Landing. They voted to borrow 2 million from the Public Works road fund to pay for Eastsound storm water projects. These are just a few examples of Council spending choices from July. My message is that I want to slow down this kind of reckless spending.
My sign, “If you don¹t want your taxes to go from 10% to Forty, vote for Gordy” may be exaggerated, but 39 percent does not rhyme with Gordy. So those of you without a sense of humor, just lighten up a bit. Jeesh! )
#4 - Open Questions To Candidates
The Island Guardian is sponsoring weekly questions to the county council candidates, and will publish their responses; and responses of the voters to their answers.
Question Number Four:
Two parts: (1) Should taxpayers be forced to pay for affordable housing for workers, or should employers offer a pay scale as needed to attract workers (i.e. let the free market dictate wages - consumer may pay more). (2) Should affordable housing be exempt from some regulations, or be treated the same as any other development?
================================================
Gordy Petersen
If employers want to have a profitable business they need to figure out how to attract skilled workers. If that means they have to provide housing or pay living wages then they need to do that and do it better than their competition.
All developers need to be treated the same under the existing regulations. If those regulations become insurmountable barriers to building even modest homes the Council should pay attention and change them. Since the proponents of affordable housing projects have become the biggest developers in San Juan County they should be strong advocates of changing the regulations that have made housing unaffordable. This would be a good first step toward solving the affordable housing crisis we all face.-Gordy Petersen
================================================
Alan Lichter
Employers will never be able to offer a wage scale that allows an employee to purchase a home, and relying on the free market to dictate wages--presumably to attract workers--is unrealistic in a small, isolated island community that does not have the economic markers and flexibility found in mainland cities.
If we want to retain a full community life, which means the availability of trades people, service personnel, supermarket checkers, shop clerks, teachers, police, fire dept, health workers, etc., we'll need to have public-private partnerships to provide affordable housing. The housing will need to be mixed: private residences, co-housing, cluster housing, rentals. And we may need to arrange some tax relief or other incentives for builders and developers, a small cost compared to the huge burden our citizens would have to assume if we had to rely on a commuting workforce.
It will become increasingly important to investigate grant possibilities for affordable housing, both from federal and foundation sources. I have advocated for a full-time grant writer for SJC, and will continue to do so.
I don't think that affordable housing should be exempt from regulations concerning safety, construction, inspections, and the usual building codes, but we may need to fast-track the permitting process for some project-specific developments. -Alan Lichter
================================================
Bruce R. Orchid
We need to separate the issues of affordable housing and low income housing, e.g. homes for “blue collar” workers, who are making a living, albeit barely, and homes for seniors and others possibly in need who are on fixed, and probably, low incomes. In either case I am not in favor of a tax to accomplish these needs, unless, of course, put on a ballot by public initiative, and passed by the voters. Consumers, both residents and visitors are already paying a premium on free market goods and services in this community, which is why so many of us shop on the mainland, although one should study the cost effectiveness of that with rising ferry fares and cost of gasoline. Increased costs to consumers reflected in goods and services will drive away both visitors and wage earners, but we have not seen that, at least created by our local economy.
I do feel developers should have incentives to provide affordable and especially low income housing. I have not studied the issue recently, but I have always supported the concept of TDR’s, traded development rights, and I understand there are still ideas and possibly proposals being discussed that I believe I could support. I would not exempt anyone from existing regulations, but try to offer incentives and creative planning to accomplish these goals. -Bruce R. Orchid
================================================
Lovel Pratt
San Juan County (SJC) is in an affordable housing crisis. Very few jobs in SJC pay a living wage that will support a family. SJC has the largest affordability gap between the average price of a home and the average wage earned by residents of any county in Washington.
SJC needs as many affordable/workforce housing solutions as possible, and in planning for the long-term, needs to recognize the importance of permanently affordable housing. Identifying and implementing solutions to our community’s need for affordable/workforce housing should not be limited by a dialog confined to taxes vs. free market, and/or regulations applied unilaterally vs. regulation exemptions.
Local small businesses already pay higher wages than similar businesses do on the mainland �" particularly construction and professional services jobs �" but those higher wages are still not high enough to meet our high housing costs. Employers alone will not solve SJC’s affordable housing crisis because in many cases it would be more cost effective for employers to fly or ferry workers in than it would be to pay workers the wages needed to purchase a home at market rate. Here are some examples of the consequences: It is primarily the workers in this community who are our volunteer firefighters and EMTs; what would it cost taxpayers to replace those volunteers with paid emergency responders? What would this community be like without the children who are the sons and daughters of the workers in our community? What would our community be like if workers no longer lived here?
The Housing Element of SJC’s Comprehensive Plan is required by law to “make adequate provisions for existing and projected [housing] needs of all economic segments of the community.” Given the overwhelming need for affordable/workforce housing, it is appropriate that there be specific provisions to address this need, including differences in how regulations are applied.
SJC has an opportunity to make an investment in our community. When an upfront investment is made by the community to support affordable/workforce housing, there are returns on that investment such as the increase in taxes collected (both real estate taxes and the additional local sales tax collections), along with the benefits of our community’s increased economic diversity and stability.
If elected, I will work with my fellow council members, county staff, housing developers, and citizens to comprehensively address our community’s affordable/workforce housing needs. Here is some of the work we can do:
• Facilitate and support the work of affordable housing organizations.
• Update the Housing Element to include policies that will create housing for all economic segments of our community.
• Work with our legislators to amend state law to allow affordable housing programs to serve SJC residents who earn up to at least 120% of the median family income.
• Establish a local Housing Trust Fund to provide grants or subsidy support (e.g., through a special fee or tax assessed on buildings over a certain size, recording fees, small percentage of sales tax, density bonus, “inclusionary zoning,” or real estate tax). -Lovel Pratt
================================================
Howard Rosenfeld
1) No, I don’t want to burden our citizens with any additional costs for affordable housing, unless we vote to tax ourselves. There are many programs, like the Home Trust and Homes For Islanders, that get their funding from donations and grants. And yes, housing availability is already contributing to difficult employee recruitment for some County positions, and I assume for other employers. When lack of affordable housing results in higher wages, which results in higher prices, is this not also a kind of tax? Government does need to create the regulatory environment that allows these affordable housing non-profits to operate in successfully. A recent example is the Phase 1, Friday Harbor UGA. This did require significant staff time, which is a cost. But, it was also required by the GMA, so we had to do it (forced?).
If we establish or partner on a housing authority, there could be a cost if grants don’t cover everything. This is something that might be considered in the future if the need for affordable housing, including rentals, is not met through other methods.
2) It is true that any exemption, forgiveness or break of any kind will pass the cost of that break along to everyone else. It’s a zero sum game. X=Y+Z. X=$. If Y doesn’t pay then Z has to pay more.
There are some creative ways to minimize the cost of exemption to make it acceptable. Here’s one I came up with while a Town Councilmember. In order to allow a qualified, non-profit, affordable housing project to defer paying the significant water and sewer hook-up fees, the Town could defer the payment using reserve funds to replace the money. A lien is placed on the property and the non-profit has 15 years to make full payment. The only cost to the Town is the interest that would have been received on that money. To achieve affordable housing this cost might be worth it. The Town did accept this as an option.
I agree with others that the phrasing of the questions tends to reveal the bias of the editor. The big question, however, is anybody reading this stuff? -Howard Rosenfeld
================================================
Lisa Guard
“Two parts: (1) Should taxpayers be forced to pay for affordable housing for workers, or should employers offer a pay scale as needed to attract workers (i.e. let the free market dictate wages-consumer may pay more). (2) Should affordable housing be exempt from some regulations, or be treated the same as any other development?”
Lisa Guards response to Island Guardians Question #4 to the candidates:
Has anyone out there looked for an employee to fill a position for their business lately or used the services and restaurants in our community? In fact, the free market already dictates wages in our county. The cost of goods and services are expensive in the islands, I believe this is a reflection of high home prices for middle and low income workers. We need relief for the low and middle income people of our community if we continue to require services, which we will. The Oaks Community began development in 1985; it is a prime example of affordable housing that boasts a great neighborhood in a serene location. I am told this type of community is no longer possible. Perhaps this should be rethought. All the available lots are full showing signs of success.
San Juan County is highly regulated, with many layers of red tape and reports required for development. This is currently a problem for everyone not just affordable housing. Let’s pare down the regulations across the board. Ultimately our community needs families to stay in the San Juan’s and not have to live elsewhere due to the high costs of regulations. Lisa Guard
================================================
Fay Chaffee
In a perfect world, wages would be sufficient so that people, all people, could afford a decent place to live, through rental or ownership. In our less-than-perfect world however, property is so costly that often this is difficult or next to impossible.
There are projects underway now that are providing ownership possibilities for people in certain income levels, and more are sure to come. I strongly support such projects, and would encourage research into grant funding available for them. “Forcing” taxpayers to pay for affordable housing for workers is not a policy that sits well in our capitalistic society. Rather, livable salaries should be offered to attract and keep qualified and competent workers.
Affordable housing projects are required to follow the development regulations of San Juan County. -Fay Chaffee
================================================
Richard Fralick
Affordable housing is important to San Juan County on many levels. Notably one of the planning goals in the Growth Management Act, RCW 336.70A.020(4), is to encourage the availability of affordable housing. On a very real level, lack of affordable housing makes recruiting and retaining employees difficult and raises concerns about the future demographics of our islands.
Providing affordable housing has proven to be a tough problem to solve. In 2006 San Juan County voters soundly defeated a proposal that would have boosted the supply of affordable housing to islanders of modest means by tacking a half-percent tax onto local real estate sales.
Considering the legal and practical implications, San Juan County must continue to seek solutions to increase the supply of affordable homes but county government should not force taxpayers to fund this need unless the taxpayers choose to do so. Thus any proposal to subsidize housing by raising taxes must be approved by the voters.
Recent experience has shown that this approach may not succeed. Consequently, we are left with free market forces dictating housing costs and wages. As the labor force becomes scarce, wages will rise and the consumer will pay more. It is not the role of county government to interfere in this process.
Despite the obvious challenges, I believe we must explore all available avenues to help overcome the affordability obstacles. Where appropriate, the County should consider adopting codes and regulations that promote affordable housing, including fee waivers, streamlined review processes or other incentives. Offering bonus densities might be another possibility. The cost of affordable housing in the County is driven by the cost of land. The only way to lower this cost is to increase density. The County already allows increased density through rural clustering. Depending on the details, bonus densities in areas designated for higher development may make sense as long as other regulations (such as sewer, water, building code, traffic and parking) are maintained. - Richard Fralick
================================================
Daniel Miller
Affordable housing is important it's true. But of course taxpayers should not be forced to pay for to pay for affordable housing for workers. .Employers should pay a fair wage scale for the workers they need. Affordable housing should be treated the same as any other development. To keep housing costs down they should shrink regulations for every one.-Daniel Miller
================================================
Mindy Kayl
Failed to respond
Quall Endorses Ranker Opponent
 40th District representative Dave Quall’s endorsement today of 40th District Senate candidate Ken Henderson may represent a fatal blow to the aspirations of County Councilman Kevin Ranker’s bid to represent the 40th district Senate seat.
The endorsement may make Henderson the front runner against Republican Steve Van Luven, who has been making trips to San Juan County in his bid for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Harriet Spanel.
Ken Henderson’s campaign has built strong momentum, and taken the lead in campaign donations, having raised nearly $50,000.00, and received high quality endorsements, including endorsement of the Washington State Labor Council-the largest labor organization in the state representing over 400,000 members; the N.W. Washington Central Labor Council-representing San Juan, Skagit, and Whatcom County; the democratic recommendation from the Washington Federation of State Employees-local 1381 and 1060; Retired Public Employees Council chapter 7, and the Bellingham Fire-Fighters local IAFF 106.
#3 - Open Questions To Candidates
The Island Guardian is sponsoring weekly questions to the county council candidates, and will publish their responses; and responses of the voters to their answers.
Question Number Three:
Do you agree with the SJC Salary Commission that Council Members are adequately paid? If not, and if elected, will you ask the Salary Commission to increase the salary level?
( Note: The Salary Commission has set the commissioner’s salary at $34,000 a year; plus full benefits, and provides them with an office with administrative staffing.-Editor)
================================================
Gordy Petersen
The job of Council Member should be about public service. In my opinion it should not be a highly paid position. It is intended to be a part time job not a career. A good public servant will put in as much time as it takes. I will do whatever it takes regardless of compensation because that's the way I am.
I will never support a pay increase for the Council position. I would support a decrease. I think the Town Council of Friday Harbor has a good compensation policy. $85.00 per meeting for up to 4 meetings per month. In my opinion they have attracted top notch candidates for the job. I think they understand the meaning of public service. I am betting that the voters do too. -Gordy Petersen
================================================
Bruce R. Orchid
I have to admit I did not pay much attention to the Salary Commission’s deliberations regarding the salaries of the County Council, however, I do feel it was a good idea to create a commission to explore this issue. I have to, once again, refer to 20 years ago when I was elected to the County Commission, and assumed that responsibility for $34,000 per year. My salary remained the same for my entire four year term, although other commissioners did receive a pay increase (state law forbid a current office holder to vote to increase their own salary), and I abstained from a vote that did increase the remuneration for the other two positions. In fact my “high” salary became a campaign issue in 1992.
I am confident that the current salary level adequately compensates a council member for a part-time schedule. What does disturb me is the fact that a council member has more responsibilities than a part-time position allows. I was at a recent council meeting where Council member Kevin Ranker was asked to outline the “additional” work he had been doing on behalf of San Juan County, especially at the state level ( remember Ranker and Alan Lichter have terms that overlap from the old Commissioner form of government, and both have been paid these past two years for full time positions). Councilman Ranker took this seriously and worked full time. It recently appeared that the council and the County Administrator were leaning towards the hiring of a “lobbyist” or a county employee who would represent the council and report back to them regarding regional and state issues. Time out!
Let’s devise a schedule whereby each council member conducts business outside the county, whether it be membership on the Northwest Regional council, or lobbying state Representatives about state issues that affect the San Juans! This could be two days a month, or more, on a per diem or stipend basis (reimbursement for travel expenses, but no additional pay). Let’s keep this part-time for now; with additional duties performed on a rotating basis, if not the same person attending meetings, at least San Juan County will be represented by an elected official, rather than a paid staff member, or contract employee.
When I started out as the first Executive Director of the Orcas Center, my salary was $16,500/per year in 1986. My job description was, according to one non-profit board member, to do whatever it took to ”Get the Job done.” If elected to the County Council, I will do whatever it takes to get the job done! -Bruce R. Orchid
================================================
Howard Howie Rosenfeld
Adequately paid? YES.
The Salary Commission has stated they are not interested in hearing any requests from individual councilmembers. They want any request to be from the Council.
There is the issue of getting our part-time paid Councilmembers to spend the significant time and effort it takes to participate at the State level? Some think doing this is more important than others. I’ve gone to Olympia and to other meetings where I thought it was valuable time spent. Others and I were effective recently on ferry issues, the oil spill rescue tug, and orca protection. However, I had to close my business whenever I went. I would have been financially better off staying home as none of these meetings were required attendance
PROPOSAL TO THE COUNCIL: I propose we ask the Salary Commission to set an extra, daily salary stipend. Getting the stipend would require a Council vote authorizing the travel. No more than three could use the stipend at one time. Since it would take four votes to authorize, no junkets would be possible. The stipend could not be used for those functions the whole Council is expected to attend, even if only three or less attended. Examples are the yearly Legislative Rally, WASC Conferences, and Island Trust meetings. This way it would only be used for those purposes the Council thought was important beyond what we normally do. The Salary Commission should also set a maximum amount that could be used per year. I suggest $15,000. Not per person, but the total available for all six members. This would cover 65 days at about $225 per day, an amount I think adequate. Members would also get County per diem and normal travel expenses, both of which we currently receive. -Howard “Howie” Rosenfeld
This alternative is far cheaper than hiring a lobbyist or utilizing staff. It is not cheaper than “doing nothing”, but that will put us at a disadvantage to other counties. Most of them are quite active. And with our small voter base we are all too easily ignored. -Howard Howie Rosenfeld
================================================
Lisa Guard
The duty of the County Council as designed by the Charter is to be legislative, where as before the three County Commissioners had full charge. This being the case, the duties of the County Council members are now reduced to half time with six representatives instead of three. The SJC Salary Commission is made up of 10 members of the community, appointed to oversee the salaries. Currently looking on it seems that the current salary is in step with its duties. One should also keep in mind that holding a position in the County Council is for the purpose of contributing and giving back to our community. - Lisa Guard
================================================
Richard Fralick
The San Juan County Charter, approved by the voters in November 2005, provided for a ten member Citizens’ Salary Commission to review and set the salaries for all of the elected county officials including the six county council members. This Commission uses comparable job and salary data to make its determinations. Doing such comparative work is difficult as there are no employment situations exactly like the San Juan County council positions. However, in the exercise of its best judgment based upon an investigative analysis, the Commission set the salary for a county council member at approximately $34,000/year plus full benefits.
Looking at other government entities can add some color to the county council compensation package for San Juan County (a charter county, population 15,000; annual budget $ 53.4 million; full time county administrator). Currently, Whatcom County (a charter county, population 188,000; annual budget $162 million; full time county administrator) provides each part time council member with a salary of $18,000/year plus full benefits, and the City of Mercer Island (municipal government, population 22,000; annual budget $54 million; full time city manager) pays each part time council member a salary of $2,400/year with no benefits.
Based upon these comparisons, I suggest that our county council members are generously compensated. If elected, I would ask the Salary Commission, when reviewing the compensation paid to county council members, to take into consideration the comparisons above, and determine if the level of compensation has been appropriately set.
Salaries should be set at a level to reflect that a county council member holds a part time position with the primary responsibility of the council being to enact laws and policies, letting the county administrator run the day-to-day operations of county government. The ultimate decision of county council compensation rests with the Salary Commission. I do not believe that it is appropriate for an elected county council member to lobby the Salary Commission to either raise or lower his or her own salary. -Richard Fralick
================================================
Fay Chaffee
Regarding the salary for the County Council, I believe the current level is appropriate. The responsibilities of the office are not meant to be full-time, as the current salary level reflects. -Fay Chaffee
================================================
Alan Lichter
If one thinks in terms of compensating individuals for professional work, there's no doubt that new Councilmembers' salaries are much too low: the so-called part-time work schedule of Councilmembers is laughable, since most of us work upwards of 40 hours each week. The notion of the Freeholders--that a County Administrator would relieve a good deal of the work done by legislators--is accurate insofar as the Administrator now deals with department heads and all administrative functions. But the legislative functions, involving a vast number of issues, must still be dealt with by the Council, which means two official meetings each week, then many outside meetings, sub-committee work, appointments with other officials and agencies and constituents, telephone calls, and emails.
If I'm re-elected, I'll try to establish a different way of viewing and compensating Councilmembers' work. A time/performance- based system may have some merit: why not provide incentives for achievement, or for extra time and travel related to the work? We need, to use one example, councilmember presence in Olympia during legislative sessions; should this not receive compensation? Or participation at conferences and meetings outside the county?
I believe that, in a professional context, we ultimately get what we pay for. If we want quality work, good research, and informed decision-making, we need to match salary with expectations. -Alan Lichter
================================================
Lovel Pratt
I agree with the SJC Salary Commission's determination of a half-time salary for half-time Council Members.
I think that it is essential that our elected officials work with our State Legislature on county issues -such as ferry transportation - that must be addressed at the state level, and that County Councilors should be compensated for trips to Olympia. However, I have pledged to go to Olympia at least once a month when the legislature is in session, regardless of compensation. -Lovel Pratt
================================================
. Daniel Miller
Yes, since this is a part time position I agree that they are adequately paid. Also one of the Ideas of moving to the new county council system was to save money, so no I will not ask the Salary Commission to increase the salary level. -Daniel Miller
================================================
Mindy Kayl
Failed to respond
================================================
( Question Number One
Question Number Two
#2 - Open Questions To Candidates
The Island Guardian is sponsoring weekly questions to the county council candidates, and will publish their responses; and responses of the voters to their answers.
Question Number Two:
”Prior to the Charter, Council members were not allowed to communicate with each other in private. Do you support up to 3 council members meeting behind closed doors as now permitted?” And if not, will you work to change the Charter to return the prohibition against this?”
(Read Question Number One & Answers)
================================================
Bruce R. Orchid
Your reference to members of public boards and commissioners is regulated by The Open Public Meetings act RCW 42.30, which prohibits members of public bodies from taking action outside a public, or open meeting, as well as causing them to make their deliberations in public. In a three member commissioner two members may not meet privately to discuss the business of their commission, as that might lead to decisions being made in private by a majority of that board. The rule becomes murky with a 6 member council, as 3 members are not a majority, and a three member vote does not pass motions.
In this case I would defer to the “Appearance of Fairness Doctrine”, just as a discussion by 3 members of a 6 member council does not violate state code, it might “appear” that 3 members meeting in private could be discussing issues that might lead to a conclusion, and a vote. To be paranoid, or careful, as we should, Council members 1, 2, and 3 could meet to discuss an issue, then Council members 2,and 3 could invite council member 4 for further discussion on the same issue. To me, this would be a violation of the Appearance of Fairness doctrine, as it would appear to me that now a majority of the council has met to discuss an issue(s).
I do not like it! When I served as a County Commissioner with Doug Corliss, Tom Cowan, and then Bill LaPorte, we were very careful about this issue. Sure, Tom and I would ride the ferry and talk about our kids basketball teams, or other things, but if confronted by the press, as we were, remember Paul Gotleib?, or the public, (we never were), we would invite them to join our conversation and continue talking about our private lives.
When interviewed by Freeholders regarding, amongst other things, the size of the council, I suggested an odd number of positions, 5 or more likely 7, to avoid unbreakable tie votes, as well as creating an atmosphere of complete fairness. I do think the Council should talk about this publicly, seek council, and then seek to change the policy. I am in favor of open and fair governance, and would respect any and all public rules or regulations which govern that issue. -Bruce R. Orchid
----------------------------------------------
Alan Lichter
This is an interesting question with a built-in bias, particularly that phrase "behind closed doors," implying, as it does, something malign and menacing. I don't remember meeting with other colleagues behind closed doors, but I have appreciated the freedom, given by the Charter, to have informal conversations with one or two of my colleagues. It's a great way to stretch one's views and thinking, which are sometimes overly narrow or limited.
Since I've only witnessed benefits in communication and policy-making from this element in our Charter, I see no reason to make any changes. - Alan Lichter
----------------------------------------------
Gordy Petersen
I believe in open government. The “Open Meetings Act” disallows actions where a majority of members of any governing body can meet and make deals in secret. When we were governed under the 3 Commissioner system 2 members could not meet because 2 constituted a majority. Therefore all meetings were public.
The Charter can only be changed by a vote of the people. The Council can propose this to the people or the people can do it through the initiative process. Either way I am not sure that changing the Charter would override State law on this issue unless we were to go back to a 3 member Council.
The Charter sets up a situation where the majority is 4. This means that 3 members can meet and conduct business out of the public view. This has pro’s and con’s.
This can be beneficial to getting business done in subcommittees of 3 or less. This also allows Council members to engage in private conversations about County business without breaking the law.
The downside is that Council members can go behind closed doors to promote a hidden agenda. This has happened for example when 3 or more members in the majority agree on an issue and wish to steamroll over the others. This eliminates public debate and is not ethical in my opinion. It is also not respectful to the Council members in the minority.
This is why it is so important to elect people that are committed to open government. If elected I will make open government a priority. I am against backroom deals between council members. County business should be out in the open for all to see. -Gordy Petersen
----------------------------------------------
Howard Rosenfeld
SHORT ANSWER: Prior to the Charter, there were three commissioners, where two was a quorum. So, two members talking to each other constituted a meeting that was supposed to be public. That is why they weren’t allowed to talk to each other outside of meetings. Under the current Charter there are six councilmembers. Up to three councilmembers, four being a quorum, can talk to each other under State law before it becomes a public meeting. I fail to see the advantage of wanting to restrict the legislative body here in San Juan County beyond what applies to the other 38 counties in the State.
LONG ANSWER: The main reason the freeholders chose six councilmembers is because it fit the legislative districts so well. A side benefit, mentioned at the time, was there could be subcommittees of up to three, because up to three could talk to each other outside of a public meeting. The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) allows this. The Municipal Research and Service Center (MRSC) lawyer’s rulings, one as recently as two weeks ago, which I requested, supports the fact that these are not public meetings. Amending the Charter maybe could require subcommittee meetings be public. A simple vote of the Council could change our rules, should we want to. Or, each subcommittee could decide to open a meeting(s) to the public on its own.
What would the rules be? Who and how much time to notify? Would the meeting need to be recorded or have notes taken? Would the public have a right to comment? Meanwhile, it would still be legal for up to three councilmembers to talk, discuss, plot, connive, depending on your point of view, in private under State law.
Subcommittees make recommendations to the Council. The Council makes decisions. As long as decisions are made in public sessions with the required public notice, and time for public comment, we comply with State, Charter and Council rules. The current Council has made it a priority to make our full meetings as public and available for viewing as possible. As Chair, I have made our Monday meetings more of a productive work session for open, public discussion of issues. Public access and public comment is allowed as much as possible, as typically we’re not as pressed for time as with the Tuesday meetings. We’ve worked to get agendas out as early as possible and available online. We’re also working toward streaming meetings by agenda item, real-time streaming of meetings, and teleconferencing, as fast as the budget allows.
This question became an issue when Sharon Kavisto, of sanjuanislander.com, wanted to attend Stormwater Subcommittee meetings. She had to be asked to leave on two occasions. I’m on that subcommittee (to draft a stormwater funding ordinance) and we’ve been meeting since last November. Even our colleagues on the Council are asking what’s taking so long? Well, it’s been a case of the more we learned, the more questions arose. We’ve even approached the possibility of changing the underlying stormwater regulations, something not originally anticipated. However, we’re getting close and hope to go public with a draft-funding ordinance toward the end of July. Could we have done better if we had opened meetings up to the public? My belief is that the process would have been more constrained and difficult. With public comment allowed it could’ve become adversarial. In the end we have to ask where is the public good? Extralegal openness or legal effectiveness? -Howard Rosenfeld
----------------------------------------------
Lisa Guard
The question was asked: Do I support three council members meeting behind closed doors as now permitted? I do not oppose council members meeting privately so long as they follow the laws of the charter. The previous Board of County Commissioners was mandated by state law disallowing private meetings. I do think that “meeting” should be clarified; as stated in your question it seems ominous and delivers a negative connotation. Where as in Mr. Webster “meeting” is defined as: 1. A coming together; assembly. 2. A place where things join; junction. This definition sounds productive, thus positive in my mind. The ability to make clarifications leads to better understanding of topics. This process ultimately helps the council work more effectively together. -Lisa Guard
----------------------------------------------
Fay Chaffee
Prior to the Charter when there was a three-member Board of County Commissioners, any two Commissioners formed a quorum, so their meeting would have constituted a majority, which was clearly prohibited outside of public meetings. This is why no two BOCC members could meet “behind closed doors.”
Under the Charter, however, a quorum consists of four Council Members, so no action can be taken in a meeting of two or three members.
I believe in open government, no behind-closed-doors actions, and no action without proper public notice and input. Some of the issues facing the County today are very complicated, many-sided, and require a clear understanding by the legislative body. I believe that informal meetings between two or three Council members can be very beneficial in terms of understanding the issue at hand, so long as absolutely no action is taken. Smaller, casual meetings can be very helpful to Council members in terms of appreciating and gaining knowledge of all aspects of some of the issues.
Meetings of less than a quorum are not prohibited by the Charter, and do not lessen the importance of public meetings, but rather make the public meetings more effective and meaningful. -Fay Chaffee
----------------------------------------------
Richard Fralick
I have always been and continue to be a strong proponent of the Open Meetings Act. I agree that "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created" (RCW 42.30.010).
I believe that all meetings of all established committees or sub-committees formally sanctioned or established by the county council should be open to the public unless specifically excluded by the Open Meetings Act. It makes no difference if up to 3 council members are present; the requirement should be universally applied. The county council can establish this requirement by ordinance and should do so. There is no need to change the Charter to make this happen.
I have worked on and observed a number of public boards subject to the Open Meetings Act. My experience has been that boards where 2 or 3 board members do not constitute a quorum and thus can have informal discussions amongst themselves (as compared to the formal process described in the previous paragraph) work better than those where there is no opportunity for such an exchange. Creative thinking and consensus building often result from this process. The opportunity for informal exchange among council members in groups less than a quorum is one of the strengths of the Charter. As a member of the Board of Freeholders who wrote the Charter, I know we specifically saw this as a desired outcome and I would not seek to eliminate it by amending the Charter. - Richard Fralick
----------------------------------------------
Daniel Miller
I do not support this practice of allowing up to three council members to meet together in private and discussing policy. If I am elected I will work return the Prohibition that used to be in place. - Daniel Miller
----------------------------------------------
Lovel Pratt
Prior to the Charter, Council members were not allowed to communicate with each other in private. Do you support up to 3 council members meeting behind closed doors as now permitted? And if not, will you work to change the Charter to return the prohibition against this?
Section 2.40(3) of the Charter states: “A majority of the Legislative Body shall constitute a quorum at all meetings. Unless otherwise provided, action of the Legislative Body shall require the affirmative vote of four (4) members.”
I support the Charter provision that at least four Council members must vote for any Council action. This requirement was included in the Charter so that decisions would always be made by Council members from at least two islands. Given that four council members (a majority) constitutes a quorum, it is my understanding that State law, not the SJC Charter, allows for 1-3 Council members to meet together without that meeting being subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, with the following provisions regarding subcommittees (from Pat Mason, Senior Legal Consultant, Municipal Research and Services Center of WA dated 6-13-08 in a reply to SJC staff and distributed at the council/staff work session on Monday June 23rd):
If the subcommittee is less than a quorum of the council, then the subcommittee is only subject to the Open Public Meetings Act in one of three circumstances. The subcommittee is subject to the OPMA when it: 1) acts on behalf of the governing body, 2) conducts hearings, or 3) or takes public testimony or comment. A subcommittee is considered to “act on behalf of” when it has been given actual or de facto decision-making authority on behalf of the full council.
It is my understanding that the Charter includes six Council members instead of the former three member Commission specifically to provide both appropriate geographical and population based representation and so that Council members could work on subcommittees. I support the intention of the Charter to provide opportunities for greater efficiencies in addressing county issues through subcommittees, with recommendations then being made by the subcommittees to the full council. If elected, I would encourage the consistent inclusion of public participation with the full council when subcommittee recommendations are made.
If subcommittee meetings are seen as meetings “behind closed doors”, I would also, if elected, investigate whether it would be appropriate for subcommittee meetings to be open for the public/press to observe. If elected, I would work to find the appropriate balance between the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act that all council deliberations and actions be done openly, and the opportunity for greater efficiencies through the work of subcommittees.
In addition, there are ‘meetings’ that can take place via email and also sequential one-on-one conversations that are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act. My nine years as a SJC Planning Commissioner has given me an extensive education about and experience with the Open Public Meetings Act. If elected I will uphold the laws of the county, state and federal government, including the Open Public Meetings Act, as required by my oath of office. I will also encourage regular education about the Open Public Meetings Act for all county advisory committees, subcommittees, commissions, and boards. - Lovel Pratt
|
|
Lifetstyles
Entertainment
John Evans
Mary Kalbert
Ron Keeshan
Gordy Petersen
Piet Visser
Stephen Robins
Bill Weissinger
Amy Wynn
Terra Tamai
Classifieds
Helpful Links
|
Locally Owned & Operated
- islandguardian.com -
(360) 378-8243 - 305 Blair Avenue, Friday Harbor, WA 98250
The Island Guardian is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists
