Election Overview

While there are some controversial races around the county this election season, there is nothing like what we've been through over the last year. The Trojan Heron had hoped to do some election postings, but unfortunately, time and events have overtaken us. Nevertheless, we'll give a brief rundown of the main election choices, with greater detail for those topics we know more about ... but we hope commenters will pitch in with their views to fill in the many gaps. Since we are locally focused blog, we'll focus on the local issues (i.e. not the two State measures, 517 and 522).

Let us know what you think ...

• Overview - Of the 36 elected positions to be filled, 24 (67%) are uncontested. We think having that many uncontested elections is an indicator of an unhealthy democracy. Is it really an election if there is no choice? Some of the uncontested elections involve very influential positions too, such as the "race" for the mayor of Friday Harbor. Also, it seems like politics is a family affair in San Juan County. Two spouses of current or former Council members are running ... Carrie Lacher for Friday Harbor Mayor and Lauren Stephens for Fisherman Bay Sewer District ... and Lacher's husband, former Councilman Howie Rosenfeld, is running for San Juan County Hospital District #1. In addition to the individual races, there is a ballot measure for Lopez to fund the Solid Waste District for the coming year. Also, there is a county-wide measure to amend the Charter. A "yes" vote on the Charter amendment would allow voters to petition for a change in our county's residency districts, rather than have that power rest solely with the Charter Review Commission. A "no" vote would leave things as is.

• San Juan Island - Of the 17 races, only 4 are contested ... one for the Port, one for the Hospital District, one for Parks and Recreation, and the Friday Harbor Council race between Farhad Ghatan and Matt Shildneck. Of the 4, the race for Hospital District has probably attracted the most attention.  That race pits former Councilman Howie Rosenfeld versus newcomer Mark Schwinge. By this stage of his political career, Rosenfeld is a well-known commodity, and without having analyzed any of the specific issues in this race, the Trojan Heron thinks it is a welcome sign that new blood, like Schwinge, is willing to run. However, we would love to hear readers' comments about this race.

• Orcas Island - Of the 11 races on Orcas, only 1 is contested. Unfortunately, this is an unwelcome Orcas pattern. Need I remind readers that Orcas also had the only uncontested Council race in recent memory when Patty Miller ran unopposed for Council a few years ago. Orcas voters are generally well informed and active, but when it comes to running for office ... many well-qualified Orcasites prefer to sit on the sidelines.

• Lopez Island - As delightful as it is to make fun of Lopez, of the 8 Lopez races, 6 are contested. If only the rest of our county could have as many well-qualified candidates running as Lopez does, our democracy would be in much better shape.
  
  Most of the contested Lopez races are for the School Board. The slate of School Board incumbents supported a lavish multimillion-dollar school bond measure that got crushed at the polls during the last election (how many times does that happen?). They are being challenged by newcomers emphasizing fiscal responsibility and performance rather than profligate spending. The incumbents include a Friends director (Dixie Budke) and others with ties to the Lopez Community Land Trust (Clive Prout and John Helding). The challengers mostly have strong financial and business experience ... and one of the challengers, Teddy McCullough, has a unique perspective as a recent Lopez High graduate. Teddy is currently in college in Washington DC and, if elected, intends to juggle his college and School Board responsibilities by attending School Board meetings telephonically.
  
  There is much passion on Lopez about the future direction of the school, and speaking of passion, that brings us to the Lopez Port District race. Incumbent Dan Post is being challenged by former incumbent Bob Porter. There has been a lot of smoke blown about this race, unfairly aimed at Dan Post. Post is an effective voice for transparency at the Port, and Post has been the subject of special-interest scorn over the years because he believes the Port should serve the broader Lopez community rather than simply serve pilots. The other two Port Commissioners, Bruce Dunlop and (County Planning Commissioner) Steven Adams, simply want Post eliminated, and Bob Porter is their candidate. That's a problem because watching Dunlop and Adams manage the Lopez Port is akin to watching Lucy and Ethel wrap candy ... they're in over their heads and unable to keep up ... but some of Dunlop/Adams' antics have even warranted more serious scrutiny. Earlier this year, according to sources, the FAA Inspector General and the FBI opened an investigation looking into some of the Port's affairs.
  
  One of the best summaries of the Lopez Port race is a comment left by Nick and Sara Jones on Lopez/Salish Rocks, which is copied below.  Many of the points raised by Nick and Sara could just as easily apply to any of our county races.

We have been following with some interest the race between Dan Post and Bob Porter for Port. It seems that the complaint about Dan, the argument for replacing him, is that he is not a "team player." This is an interesting line of attack, to say the least. It implies that the best candidate for any given position is the one who is going to get along with the others best. Kind of like seeking out a beta personality puppy if you already have a couple of dogs in a family.

A port commissioner is a public official spending public money. It is a position requiring as high a level of probity and integrity as any other elected position. A get-along go-along attitude is the worst qualification we can think of for any position of public trust. Conversely, the willingness and fortitude to consistently ask hard questions and challenge received wisdom is the highest of recommendations for such a position. Over twenty plus years on the Port of Lopez Dan Post has demonstrated a heroic willingness to ask the hard questions, over and over again. He has done so in the face of scorn, mockery, and endless personal attacks.

Dan Post has also been the only Port Commissioner to consistently push to expand the mission of the port to serve the wider community. He spearheaded the effort to have the Port take over the dump, at a time when the received wisdom was that turning our facility over to San Juan Sanitation was the only viable outcome. The Port effort did not come to fruition, but it led directly to the takeover of the dump by the Lopez Solid Waste Disposal District, on which board Dan tirelessly serves. Dan pushed to improve and lease port owned lands for agriculture--providing economic opportunity and local foods, and he continues to advocate for the Port to take on the much needed project of commercial water-front access on the island.

Dan Post is a small-town hero, a tireless doer and a man of deep integrity. Please join us in supporting him for another richly deserved term as Port of Lopez Commissioner.

The Wait Is Over

The election results are in.

• Jarman 3,372 votes (50.52%) to Pratt 3,302 votes (49.58%)
• Hughes 3,440 votes (51.1%) to Byers 3,292 votes (48.9%)
• Stephens 3,640 votes (57.08%) to McClerren 2,737 votes (42.92%)

San Juan County is no stranger to recounts. If there is a recount, then the challenging party must pay $0.25 per ballot (depending on the closeness of the outcome). According to the election website, there are approximately 60 votes left to tally.

The Lopez School Bond measure, which needed 60% to pass, lost badly.

• Approved - 619 votes (42.19%)
• Rejected - 848 votes (57.81%)

And for some strange reason, Sharon Kivisto felt the urge to predict the outcome of the election just hours before the official results were in. Kivisto predicted that Pratt would defeat Jarman.

Kivisto reprised the Chicago Daily Tribune (Dewey Defeats Truman)  by predicting a win for Pratt just hours before the official results were announced.

While We're Waiting ...

The only election result that seems safe to call at this moment is the one between incumbent Jamie Stephens and Brian McClerren in the Lopez race. Looks like Stephens has won that contest.

As for the other races, Jarman leads Pratt; and Hughes leads Byers, but it's too close to make a final call. While you wait for the next count of ballots at 5pm on Wednesday, have a look at a video of the Council discussion regarding aerial photos that took place on Tuesday.

If you listen to the video, you will hear that the resolution of the proposed photos is no better than that of Google Earth? Then why doesn't the County just pay $400 for a Google Earth Pro license?

Also, other Counties aren't making the aerial photos public, even though the photos are paid for with taxpayer money? Is that revelation supposed to be a comfort ... that our County government will have aerial photos that will be kept secret from the taxpayers who paid for it? The photos are public records. How can they be kept from the public?

The more the Council talks about the aerial photos, the stranger it seems. The County is getting some of the money for the photos from Roche Harbor Resort and a realtor on Lopez ... a realtor on Lopez? What?!?

State Of The County

With election results due this week, we think it’s time to review the state of the County.

Over the past couple of weeks, the implementation of the new CAOs has been delayed a full year because no one can figure out what they mean. Even Shireene Hale, who wrote the language in the Ordinances and championed them, admitted in front of the Council that she doesn’t know what certain parts of the CAOs are saying. Despite this, certain of our fellow citizens continue to speak in favor of the new CAOs, as if they understand them better than anyone else. They don’t, and neither do the candidates who have alleged that they are simpler and better than the old/current ones.

The CAOs are still under appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) by the Friends of the San Juans (who urged their approval), the Common Sense Alliance (who did not urge their approval) as well as others. The lawsuit regarding the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) violations also continues, with a decision expected in the upcoming week about a Motion for Summary Judgement heard in Court on Friday. An appeal of the CRC propositions is still alive too, but will not affect the election this week.

We have a new national monument, the meaning of which (like the CAOs) remains hard to decipher. It was billed as a grassroots effort to protect BLM lands here, but to many, the entire affair looked more like an effort to promote eco-tourism by some of the more prominent and connected eco-glorymongers in the islands.

On election matters, the candidates have raised approximately $110k altogether, with about $73k amassed by the partisan candidates (Pratt - $23k, Byers - $30k, and Stephens - $20k). Trust Islanders, a newly formed non-partisan PAC, has raised about $24k to assist the non-affiliated candidates (whether they want it or not). The non-partisan candidates, collectively, have raised only about $37k.

This election has seen quite a few misstatements by certain candidates in addition to the aforementioned claim that the new CAOs are simple. Jamie Stephens, for example, claimed during the League of Women Voters forums that the County did not add debt during 2012. While the County did refinance some of its debt in 2012, it also added $1.7 million in new general debt too. County budgets are at near all-time highs as well, despite shedding staff over the last few years. Structural cost imbalances also persist since staff payroll costs (which form the bulk of general fund expenditures) continue to grow faster (3% per annum) than the levy lift limit (1% per annum).

Despite the imbalances and the need to add debt, somehow Bob Jean has been able to find about $160,000 in 2013 for highly questionable purposes related to dubious Community Conversations and more advanced aerial photography for our County GIS system.

Committees are still out of control, although the Winter Council has made attempts to get their hands around them.

The Planning Department continues to hire staff, and the unspoken relentless planning vision for our County appears to be to create and staff an Urban Planning Department despite being a rural county.

The Stormwater Program remains confused, purposeless, and expensive.

The Network/Machine continues to thrive and speak out, as is evdent from letters to the editor. It continues to exert itself out of public view too. Ron Zee, head of the Stewardship Network, the Madrona Institute, and the Conservation District, has brought Kyle Loring of the Friends into the Conservation District as an advisor. Word has it that he is about to hire Linda Lyshall into the Conservation District too.

The State of the County? Still rotten ... with plenty of work to do regardless who wins the election.

Elections -- Our Fouled Waters

In a recent letter to the Journal, we find the latest person making the baseless claim that our CAOs are needed to protect our environment. Like Judge Darrah's earlier letter, it is devoid of specifics as to how the CAOs purportedly achieve environmental protection.

The CAOs do not protect anything. Even if we had a problem, the CAOs would miss it. That is the simple truth, but there is a lot of eco-cachet associated with pushing even pointless environmental regulation in the San Juans.

And this latest letter in the Journal by Steve Ulvi describes our local waters as being fouled. They are ... but only metaphorically. They are fouled by the widespread, relentless pollution of the truth by people who rely on deception, evasion, and fallacy to make their points.

Our waters have been repeatedly described as "pristine" and "spectacular," but to keep the grant money flowing in, serious problems have to be alleged -- never proven -- but always suggested. The pervasive eco-deception is to try to convey a contradictory mythology to visitors and outsiders that these islands are untouched ...  virgin ... but we are also somehow impaired and imminently threatened by further degradation because of development too. The reality is that these islands have been resource harvested for decades and have been scraped clean at least twice, but despite that, our islands are nonetheless "pretty spectacular" to use a phrase by NOAA. In fact, we probably live more lightly on the land now than we have in decades.

Harken back to our August 23, 2012 post which recounts the appearance of a NOAA official in front of our County Council in July 2012. Regarding our local marine habitat, Mindy Rowse said:

Habitat in San Juan County is pretty spectacular. I don't think anyone is doing anything wrong at this point.

See for yourself by following this link which provides further links to Rowse's Council appearance. Along the same lines, but separate, view the video below of a presentation by Dr. David Hyde.

For those of you who are still trying to make up your minds about this election, one side is clearly lying about the CAOs. It is the side with the outspoken judges and retired Park Service employees grasping for unachievable aspirational goals of a world uninfluenced by any people ... except them.

The CAOs will not return us to an eco-virginal state because, even if that were possible, no one knows what it means anyway, but somehow that aspirational eco-standard is what we are always compared to by the likes of Ulvi and Darrah.

The CAOs don't save our environment for our children and our grandchildren's future; they protect self-interested eco-bureaucrats and preserve eco-deception for our children and our grandchildren's future.

County Gone Wild - A Recap

A recent New York Times article discussed why our great nation sometimes seems to be coming apart at the seams, and I think it aptly pinpoints the state of affairs in San Juan County too:

I heard a more satisfying if somewhat depressing explanation for the seemingly random eruptions of political idiosyncrasy from Samuel Abrams, who teaches politics at Sarah Lawrence and Stanford. Abrams, who has spent the last decade or so researching our political habits, begins with the evidence that most Americans are simply not engaged in local politics, except perhaps on pocketbook issues. In the absence of public attention, motivated, well-financed and sometimes extreme elites have captured the lawmaking process in many state capitals. Legislatures are vulnerable to (and often populated by) the most ardent believers in a cause, the ones who care enough to take the time, raise the money, turn out on Election Day and lobby relentlessly.

“People who participate in state and local government tend not to be representative of the masses at all,” Abrams told me. “They tend to be highly engaged political elites — 15 percent of the population who think they’re fighting this culture war. They’ll see an opening. They’ll see a judge, they’ll see a legislature that looks amenable to something, and they’ll try to push it through and build a groundswell around that.”

This County has been run by a power clique for so long that residents have become accustomed to it as normal. It's not normal (or shouldn't be). It's not representative. It's the wrong way to live.

By Trojan Heron estimates, about 160 influential people run this County. They sit on committees; they interview candidates for office and support/endorse the ones that pass their muster; they get grants; they work inside the County and control who gets hired; they manage the non-profits; they write the letters that get published in our newspapers. In short, they run our lives while the rest of us are trying to just live our lives. If no one else in the County except these 160 people existed, you wouldn't even notice by only looking at the way our public governance and media conduct themselves.

The traditional power clique is losing its grip on the control levers here (thanks to all of you), and they are very upset about it. They are unraveling. The letters and emails they send out are often ad hominem attacks, not based on issues. Even their attempts at issues-based homilies, like Judge Darrah's opinion piece, are so turgid and bereft of relevant facts as to be meaningless (like the CAOs themselves). Elaborately worded ignorance is still just ignorance, and Judge Darrah can't seem to wrap his elevated mind around something very simple: the CAOs cannot remedy something that does not exist to begin with. These islands have not been shown to be contributing to environmental decline, so efforts to justify restrictions on the premise of protection are specious. The only environmental threats the CAOs address are the ones fabricated on paper by the tables and assertions developed by Shireene Hale and concurred by Dr. Adamus. A CAO scofflaw would be in violation of one of these tables/assertions only, not violating actual environmental protections.

The new CAOs are so confusing, anti-people, environmentally pointless, and rambling that it is nearly impossible to support them without also being a hypocrite regarding some aspect of their implementation ... because somewhere, somehow nearly everyone will be in violation of their unbridled discretion. The CAOs were designed to catch everyone. If you support them, you are undermining yourself, not just your neighbors.

The ballots are out. Already, some of you may have voted. We hope you re-read the posts on this blog and look at the links on this post before you hand in your ballot. You can help to stop the madness if you continue to participate, vote, and speak out.

Here are the latest fundraising tallies (and links to posts/videos of the candidates). It's quite clear who is independent and who is supported by the Machine. It is also gratifying to see that some candidates have noticeably changed their message during this campaign in response to citizen feedback. That just shows that we can have an effect if we all stay engaged.

• Byers - $28,871
• Pratt - $22,516
• Stephens - $19,299
• Jarman - $14,173
• Hughes - $10,468
• McClerren - $5,900

(Note: Trust Islanders has raised $14,125 and has unilaterally endorsed Jarman, Hughes, and McClerren.  However, there is no coordination with their campaigns.)

Byers And Brickworks?

The Trojan Heron is confused. The advertisement below has appeared in the Journal and related papers, and it shows Byers standing in front of the Brickworks and smiling with select contractors.

But Byers doesn't have anything to do with the Brickworks or the Agricultural Guild, does she? Not her too?!? The Ag Guild already had a mess on its hands back in 2010 when Lovel Pratt served simultaneously as Ag Guild Project Director and County Council woman. Now, a Council wannabe is talking about her experience with $20 million in construction projects and standing in front of the Brickworks, one of the most recognizable construction projects in the county.

If Byers or the Ag Guild have anything to do with one another, they should explain their relationship; otherwise, what is this advertisement saying?

Also, we'd like to know how many contractors, beyond the hand-picked OPAL few, really intend to support Byers. Aside from being environmentally pointless, the CAOs are some of the most anti-affordable-housing, anti-business, anti-people, anti-middle-class laws to ever hit our books. That's the feedback we consistently hear from contractors and realtors, especially those who have attended the head-shaking CAO training put on by the County.

Byers supports the revamped version of the CAOs. Do contractors really support her, or is this just a bad April Fools joke?

4.34_v?

In lawsuit news, the suit regarding the CRC ballot propositions continues with some new revelations over the past week. This lawsuit seeks to overturn Propositions 1, 2, and 3 approved by voters last November. Those propositions are the reason we are having new elections right now.

The main points of that suit have been covered well by other media, but the sanjuanislander.com had to issue three versions of the same story over the past few days because of confusion (by our Prosecuting Attorney's Office) over what was actually approved by voters. It all has to do with Section 4.34 of the Charter, which sets forth rules for changing residency districts.

All along, one of the arguments made by plaintiffs in the CRC suit has been that the propositions separately modified overlapping sections of the Charter in a potentially conflicting and confusing way. Plaintiffs argue that the propositions presented at least the theoretical risk that a voter could have simultaneously approved and rejected the same Charter language. While appearing to deal with separate and mutually exclusive issues, the three propositions actually amended identical secondary provisions of the Charter.

Now, it appears that such a possibility may no longer just be theoretical. At the moment, it looks like we actually may have multiple versions of Section 4.34 of the Charter. Last Thursday, the plaintiffs filed a new petition asking the Court:

The citizens of San Juan County are left completely in the dark as to which version of 4.34 controls, if any. Is it the 4.34 amended by Proposition 1? Or the 4.34 amended by Proposition 2? Or the 4.34 amended by Proposition 3? There is simply no way to know.

The controversy over Section 4.34 arose because the Winter Council is discussing whether to ask voters to entertain yet another change to the number of districts and representatives on the Council. Some versions of Section 4.34 say this can be done only by the CRC, whereas other versions of Section 4.34 leave this question open and allow for change by initiative and ordinance.

As stated by the plaintiffs in their petition this week:

Perplexingly, the voters have seemingly amended three different versions of Section 4.34 - two versions of which are in direct conflict with each other. That is, one version (the Proposition 1 version) now evidently prohibits the alteration of the boundaries of districts by both County Council ordinance and popular initiative, and two versions (Propositions 2 and 3) remain silent on this change and evidently keep section 4.34 in effect with no substantial (although somewhat differing) alterations.

The plaintiffs go on to say:

Also setting aside for the moment the constitutional propriety of whether the power to both amend by ordinance or by initiative can be so suspended in such a manner, it defies explanation that the County can exist with the state of the law in such contradiction. Petitioners pray that this conflict impresses upon the Court the need for an expedited hearing schedule and, a preliminary injunction staying the election scheduled for April 23, 2013 until this matter can be dealt with rationally.

No matter how you feel about this latest turn of events, I think many of us can agree with the following assertion in the plaintiffs petition.

In sum, political chaos reigns in San Juan County.

Legal chaos too!

Doing Things In Secret Sure Is Productive

Most of you probably know that the County is being sued by the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) over violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), specifically as it relates to the Critical Areas Ordinances (CAOs). At issue is whether three Council members are permitted to meet in private. At first, the Council was advised by our Prosecuting Attorney (PA) that it was okay for three Councillors to meet because it did not represent a quorum (it takes 4 votes to pass legislation in our system). But after the issue was pressed by the Charter Review Commission (CRC), the PA reversed his decision, explaining that a quorum can be construed as either the number of Council members needed to take positive (4 Councillors) or negative (3 Councillors) action.

In the depositions related to the lawsuit regarding the OPMA, many of the participants in the CAO Committee meetings have a poor recollection of what happened during their illegal secret get-togethers (see previous posting). However, in January 2012 the same people spent a considerable period of time in one of the non-secret Council meetings talking about all the great stuff they got done in secret. Stephens even refers to the CAOs directly. Pratt says that she can hardly remember any Council votes where subcommittees didn't get their way.

How can Pratt remember that detail but not details related to her deposition (67 denials)?

The video strongly suggests that the OPMA was violated, not just for the CAOs, but for nearly everything the previous Council did.

Watch the first half hour to 40 minutes of the linked video. It is full of "Holy Crap!" moments.

Ordinary People After Lisa -- OPAL?

The OPAL Community Land Trust is the affordable housing 501(c)(3) run by County Council candidate Lisa Byers from Orcas Island. Some OPAL homeowners have complaints about substandard materials being used in their homes. Allegedly, nine OPAL homes were built using non-structural exterior siding, contrary to design specifications. Complaints stretch back years regarding this issue.

These OPAL owners want their story told, and it appears as if their story is backed by a substantial amount of documentation. Below is the story of these OPAL homes in the words of one of the owners, Roger Adams (click to enlarge any of the 11 pages, or right-click to download).

According to Adams, of the nine homes with alleged off-spec non-structural siding, only one has been repaired ... the home belonging to Lisa Byers.
________________________________________________________________

The Mean Girls Of San Juan-istan

In the movie Mean Girls, a homeschooled girl (coincidentally named Cady Heron) returns home to America after living with her zoologist parents in Africa for 12 years. She enters public high school and discovers a clique-ish world of girl-on-girl cattiness that is more vicious than any predator she may have encountered in Africa.

In the gender-neutral style of modern America, our San Juan County Mean Girls encompass both men and women, and they are proud of themselves. You can find the rantings of our Plastics on County news outlets. It is difficult for us to comment on recent web-fits by Kivisto, Dehlendorf, Azous, and Rosenfeld since we are not fluent in gibberish, but we can say that they almost always discredit themselves with self-styled hypocrisy. Kivisto, for example, has editorialized in the past about civility (or lack of it) and then pitched a pencil-throwing tantrum at a public meeting. In her most recent piece, Kivisto ridicules the legitimate fear that citizens feel while she simultaneously plugs draconian retaliatory enforcement. Azous gets in on the act too, applauding Kivisto, but we have heard of several islanders who will never let Azous near their property again because of what she has done to them. Rosenfeld opines about fictitious big-money Republican PACs even though the Democratically-endorsed candidates in this election have raised over $68,000. And Dehlendorf ... well ... the only thing that comes to mind when reading Dehlendorf is Aesop's fable about the Ass in the Lion's Skin.

And the fact that our local Mean Girls are ranting recently about blogs and cached web pages emphasizes how bereft of content our local news coverage has become. Like the CAOs themselves, our County news outlets are filled with pages and pages of content-less mean-spiritedness hidden behind phony talk of community and environmental protection. Real stories about island people and the workings of County government are ignored.

The Mean Girls from our islands feel the County is being abused by its citizens rather than the other way around. The "law is the law," we hear them say. They want land-use violators punished ... severely ... and they want as many land-use laws as they can get. Makes you wonder what sort of eco-planning-sharia laws they would put in place if there were no opposition? Have you ever heard them exercise self-restraint? How far would they go? When is the last time we heard any of the Mean Girls say, "Oh, I think that law or enforcement action goes too far?"

There will always be Mean Girls in our midst, but do we want to continue letting them run the place?

"And I was like, 'Why are you so obsessed with me?'"

A Short Post About A Big Lie

In Pratt's papers, we find a note stating that the CAOs are "site specific" and therefore allow for variable buffers. Over and over again, we have heard that our CAOs are complex because they are "site specific."

Let's explain the County's site-specific approach.

Suppose we had a buffer table in the CAOs that "protected" critical areas on your property based upon your eye color. The table might show that blue-eyed people get buffers of 50 feet, brown-eyed people have to make do with 100-foot buffers, and if you have green eyes, you are eligible for the Green Option and don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Now suppose you constructed a separate table for another land-use restriction, this time based on your shoe size.  We could formulate a system where the interplay between your eye color and your shoe size would determine your final land use controls. Besides eye color and shoe size, other specific factors might be brought into play, such as height or weight.

Now, that sort of CAO would be entirely specific to you, but it would be irrelevant for the purpose of "protecting" the critical area.

Similarly, our CAOs are based on site-specific factors that have no relevance to any problem and no relevance to protections of critical areas. Without a site-specific assessment of the source of a problem on a parcel, a site-specific remedy is meaningless.

Pratt Notes Involved In Deposition

Commenters have asked to see the notes related to Lovel Pratt's deposition in the secret-meeting CAO-Committee OPMA lawsuit. They are provided as images below (click any of the images below to enlarge). They'll be the subject of a future post, but for now, have a look and judge for yourself if Pratt and the rest of the Committee discussed only non-substantive scheduling matters.

Oh, and by the way, the BLM lands are now a National Monument too (another link here).
_______________________________________________________________

I Don't Recall

The San Juan County Chapter of the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) just issued a press release (see below) containing information about the depositions in their lawsuit regarding Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) violations. We'll be delving into this more in coming days since some of the information is in the public record now.

Pratt cites her experience as one of the key reasons to support her election. Her website says:

San Juan County needs leaders with experience, good judgment and expertise; leaders who are dedicated, accessible, and responsive; leaders who will make decisions in the best interests of our entire community.

This is what Lovel Pratt will bring to the new County Council.

But the OPMA lawsuit suggests she can't remember key portions of her experience. She doesn't seem all that responsive either. Was she making decisions in the best interest of our entire community? Irrespective of her campaign statements, she probably can't recall.

Have a look at the press release, which is presented in its entirety.
______________________________________________________________

County Council Rejects Settlement Offer

Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR), recently submitted an offer to settle the lawsuit with San Juan County alleging violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). The County Council rejected the offer.

The CAPR case is about open and transparent government. This is a priority to more than 85% of the people who voted in the November election. Our Prosecutor states, “The policy reasons for open government are very strong.”  CAPR agrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Gaylord here.

However, the actions of San Juan County in this matter seem to be contrary to the words of the Prosecutor and the policies of the Council. Section 2.4 of the Council Rules of Procedure requires that, “all meetings of the Council shall be open to the public.” This rule was not followed in this case where secret meetings of 3 council persons and staff occurred more than 20 times before coming to light and being stopped.

In fact, the County has taken steps to further conceal and block attempts to gather information. This is not a commitment to open government. On 2/20/13 the County filed a protective order in an attempt to block the deposition of Deputy Prosecutor Jon Cain. The County has further attempted to limit our discovery. In depositions of Council and staff members the terms “I don’t recall,” “I don’t remember,” “I don’t know,” were used more than 250 times. What is the County trying to hide?

In the deposition of former subcommittee member Lovel Pratt, which lasted less than 4 hours, she stated that she didn’t know or couldn’t recall answers to simple questions more than 74 times. When presented with her own notes taken at the meetings she did not recall what the notes referred to:

“Q. Do you recall in the February 3rd, 2012, meeting anyone from staff asking what were the views of the Council members as to wetland buffers, stormwater, site specific and variable buffers and/or medium risk approaches? Do you recall staff requesting any guidance from the County Council members in attendance on any of those topics?

Pratt. I don't recall.

Q. So you don't -- why were they discussed?  Do you have any idea?

Pratt. I don't recall.

Q. Ma'am, this meeting is only less than a year old, and you just don't recall?

Pratt. I just -- I don't recall the specifics of this particular meeting.  I'm sorry.

Q. There's no need to apologize.  You just don't recall?

Pratt. I don't.

Q. And these notes don't refresh your memory?

Pratt. Sorry.”

If you believe that open and transparent government should be a priority of San Juan County and if you believe that all meetings of the Council should be open and transparent, then we need your support. Send any donations to CAPR San Juan P.O. Box 1866 Friday Harbor WA 98250.

Two Views Of Anonymity

As our readers know, we at the Trojan Heron are great fans of anonymity. We care what people say, not who says it.  Anonymous writings, especially of a dissenting political nature, are as old as the republic. They are as American as apple pie.

For example, Benjamin Franklin used several aliases over his lifetime, including "Poor Richard" of Poor Richard Almanac's fame. Other aliases used by Franklin include the following:

• Silence Dogood
• Caelia Shortface
• Martha Careful
• Busy Body
• Anthony Afterwit
• Alice Addertongue
• Polly Baker
• Benevolous

Anonymous writing is an effective and societally beneficial form of dissent when a culture of fear pervades a society. At the Trojan Heron, we believe there is most definitely a culture of fear in San Juan County today ... fear of governmental and social retaliation for speaking one's mind. It is a repulsive aspect of life here. We believe wholeheartedly in government transparency while believing equally strongly in personal privacy. Often, however, our fellow citizens seem confused by the distinction and want the reverse -- government opacity and personal transparency.

No. We cannot agree.

Below are two views of anonymity drawn from the pages of our local press/blogs over the past few days. First we have the view of Rick Steinhardt of Orcas Island, the husband of Friends Board member Janet Alderton.

The trouble with Anonymous by Rick Steinhardt

To the editor,
We have experience with anonymous blogs in these islands. To some they seem harmless enough. However gossip is like a virus, it goes from the source from person to person. Distortions can occur with repetition and these distortions naturally increase with distance from the source. Soon the original comment which may have been tongue in cheek turns into new "facts" which can be quite harmful. 

When one makes an anonymous commentary one is disclaiming any responsibility for the consequences, which is both cowardly and irresponsible. This is specially true in our society where it is easy for unstable personalities to obtain guns.

Responsible editors do not print anonymous letters for very good reasons. If you know of someone putting out an anonymous blog, let them know they are being both cowardly and irresponsible.Together we can restore civil discourse and make real progress dealing with the important issues that face the San Juan Islands.

Sincerely,
Rick Steinhardt Deer Harbor

Next, we have the view of "Peter Smith," an alias used by a Lopezian speaking out against the Lopez school bond measure, which will be on the same ballot as the County Council election in April.  "Peter Smith's" posting on Lopezrocks was removed because of the use of an alias. The Trojan Heron feels this amounts to censorship, and nearly every other news or blogging outlet in San Juan County engages in similar censorship behavior. We fail to see how censorship protects our community.

First, Peter is not my name. I am a concerned parent who does not want to voice my opinion publicly because I fear how the administration will treat my kids at school. There has been a lot of talk about the district taking a firm hand when it comes to kids who are speaking out about things that differ from the administrations views. This same fear is shared by parents who speak out. This is not a new thing, and infact just happend, about a different subject completely, about a month ago around a group of students who were concerned about some use of alcohol by students attending a school dance. So, as a parent, the report that this happened to a student speaking out about the bond, does not even surprise me. As a parent this bond concernes me as well. I understand that there are real needs to fix issues with the building, but also feel, as do many other parents, that this has seriously overshot that need. I know that the administration will say, "well we had community outreach and you did not participate" and they would be correct. We did not participate because we were afraid for what that participation would mean to our children's experience at school. We have seen what happens to the kids of parents who speak out, and we did not want that to happen to ours. The concern that we have about the bond that there are so many importnat needs that should be addressed way before this one. Is it good to have a new school with all the modern upgrades and a new administration office and a private gym for the staff? SURE! But lets address more pressing issues first. I had to buy a math book this year for my middle student child because the school did not have enough to go around and she was being asked to share with another student. There are real needs from a teaching standpoint, from a bullying standpoint, and from countless other places that should take overwhelming precedence over building the perfect building. There are real concerns by school staff around the bond and about the focus its passing would take away from core issues that need so desperately to be addressed NONE OF WHICH THEY CAN VOICE PUBLICLY EITHER. I am writing this because the voters of Lopez need to know that a yes vote on this measure is not a yes supporting the students, it is a yes supporting the administration. Those who have a stake in the school, as parents, teachers, administrators, and students are clearly afraid of the repercussions of speaking out. It is sad, but it is true. PLEASE VOTE NO and support those who know that this is not about the needs of the students or a better education, or increasing college preparation or placement or providing real world life skills. This is about a dream list of what could we do to a school campus if we could do all we wanted to do. Lets keep the most important thing, the most important thing. If we as a community are going to support increasing taxes lets do it supporting a better education, not a better building.

You Have Two Cows

A friend sent me a fun summary of "isms" which typically start with "You have two cows." I have posted the list below, and I've tacked on my own entry for "San Juan County-ism" for the way things seem to work around here. Feel free to add on, concur, disagree, or comment.

But before you do that, have a look at the latest election fundraising totals from the Washington State PDC, with candidate tallies listed in descending order.

1. Lisa Byers - $26,971
2. Lovel Pratt - $21,807
3. Jamie Stephens - $18,824
4. Rick Hughes - $8,768
5. Bob Jarman - $8,234
6. Brian McClerren - $4,050

The grand total is $88,654, with over 76% going to the party-affiliated candidates. Individually, Byers and Pratt have raised more money than the bottom three non-affiliated candidates combined (Hughes, Jarman, and McClerren together have raised $21,052).
___________________________________________________________

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
You still only have two cows.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows,
but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...

SAN JUAN COUNTY-ISM

You have two cows.
The County claims the cows are in a wetland and declares them nonconforming.
The Friends sue because the cows can be seen from a big donor's new shoreline mansion.
The ARC, Tourist Board, and Transportation Steering Committee promote the cows as agri-tourism,
The individuals from the County, the Friends, and the ARC/Tourist Board/ Transportation Committee (above) are all the same people.
The Community Land Trust believes the cows belong to everyone.
The Land Bank wants to borrow money to purchase and preserve the cows.
The Marine Resources Committee believes the cows are killing salmon.
You, the cow owner who just wants to be left alone, are discredited as an alleged Koch-funded Republican.

The Lower Lovels of San Juan Politics

In Dante's Inferno, the lowest levels of Hell are fraud and treachery, even lower than violence.

One of Lovel Pratt's campaign themes is a strong economy based on family-wage jobs. Here is what Pratt says on her website:

The Council also needs to find ways to encourage and support new forms of economic development, particularly year-round, family-wage jobs that are a good fit for the islands. If elected to the new County Council I will support a strong local economy and economic development that fosters our island way of life.

Barely 6 months ago, this supporter of family-wage jobs seemed gleeful upon discovering that the County isn't required to pay prevailing wages for some of the grant funds it receives (see email at end of this blog entry).

That’s great if L&I have confirmed that we don’t need to require prevailing wages for the septic loan program funds. Please confirm with me so that I can pass on this news on to WSAC.

Not having to pay prevailing wages sure makes those beloved grant funds go further. Nevertheless, there is evidence that Pratt really does have a demonstrated commitment to family-wage jobs ... as long as her family is involved. As part of the court proceedings in one of the recent County lawsuits, Pratt made the following statements in a declaration (excerpts below).

I, Lovel Pratt, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is true and correct:

Since my last paycheck from San Juan County, I have received no employment income. In addition, starting January 1, 2013, I now have an additional monthly expense of $1,174.00 for health insurance for me and my husband and our children. (Health insurance for me and my family was previously paid for through my employment with San Juan County.) If the charter amendments are invalidated at this late stage in the election process and the general election is not permitted to go forward, my family's financial contribution to the campaign and our family's financial sacrifice will be for not [sic], to our substantial detriment.

There are plenty more woeful laments of the hardships that have befallen Pratt in her political career in her full declaration, which is included as an image at the end of this post (sans attachments for the sake of brevity). It is interesting reading, especially considering that Pratt's hardships are likely assuaged significantly by having married into a branch of the Cook family of Castle & Cook fame.

Lastly, in her latest letter to the editor, Pratt criticizes her opponent for being fiscally irresponsible because Jarman voted to approve $45,000 towards CAO implementation, and then later he voted to delay CAO implementation. The Trojan Heron feels this is a ludicrous and grasping criticism which is just a desperate effort to distract voters from the millions in debt and $50 million budget that Pratt left in her wake as Council woman.

As has been noted elsewhere, the recent meetings that planning staff held to explain the CAOs to realtors, builders, and architects demonstrated that there are myriad unanswered questions about how the new CAOs could be applied. That being the case, setting a hearing is the only responsible course of action in order to determine whether implementation should be delayed until someone figures out what the CAOs actually mean. Islanders should be grateful to Bob Jarman and others for working to ensure that islanders are not required to comply with rules that no one can decipher.

__________________________________________________________________

From: Scott Merriman [mailto:SMerriman@wacounties.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:52 AM
To: Lovel Pratt
Subject: Re: PIC Grant

Thanks for the update.  I brought the issue up with the Partnership.  I did not contact L and I.

Scott Merriman

Washington State Association of Counties

3609519256

On Oct 17, 2012, at 9:47 AM, "Lovel Pratt" <LovelP@sanjuanco.com> wrote:

Hi Scott,

It looks like the L&I prevailing wages requirement for our septic loan program has been resolved.

Mark Tompkins (see contact info below) could provide more details if needed.

Thank you for your work on this!

Lovel

Lovel Pratt

San Juan County Council, District 1

Office: 55 Second St. N., 1st floor

Phone: 360-370-7473

Mail: 350 Court Street, No. 1, Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, RCW Chapter 42.56 et al.

From: Mark Tompkins
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:30 PM
To: Lovel Pratt
Cc: Bob Jean; John Manning; Ed Hale
Subject: RE: PIC Grant

Lovel,

That is correct.

Mark

From: Lovel Pratt
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:33 PM
To: Mark Tompkins
Cc: Bob Jean; John Manning; Ed Hale
Subject: RE: PIC Grant

Hi Mark,

That’s great if L&I have confirmed that we don’t need to require prevailing wages for the septic loan program funds.  Please confirm with me so that I can pass on this news on to WSAC.

Thank you,

Lovel

Lovel Pratt

San Juan County Council, District 1

Office: 55 Second St. N., 1st floor

Phone: 360-370-7473

Mail: 350 Court Street, No. 1, Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, RCW Chapter 42.56 et al.

From: Mark Tompkins
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:12 AM
To: Lovel Pratt
Cc: Bob Jean; John Manning; Ed Hale
Subject: RE: PIC Grant

Lovel,

Yes – our low interest loan project is listed as one of the forms of financial assistance under task 5.  The projects are separate but we can utilize/report repairs completed with loan funds as a deliverable under the PIC grant provided the repair is addressing an identified pollution source. 

In regards to the septic loan program – L&I has indicated that our low interest loan program, providing bona fide loans, does not fall under the prevailing wage requirements. 

The additional funds included in the PIC grant are to enhance the current loan programs and to provide low interest loans to assist property owners remediate conditions that are causing contamination.  The program details have not been developed but my initial thoughts are if we are providing bona fide loans then the prevailing wage rules would not apply.  However, we will need to check with our grant officer to confirm.  Ed, do you know or do we need to ask Blake?

Mark

From: Lovel Pratt
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 3:31 PM
To: Mark Tompkins
Cc: Bob Jean; John Manning
Subject: FW: PIC Grant

Hi mark,

Is there any relationship between the PIC Grant and the septic system repair funding/grant that requires prevailing wages?

FYI - WSAC is working with L&I on that prevailing wage issue.

Thank you for getting back to me about this.

Lovel

Lovel Pratt

San Juan County Council, District 1

Office: 55 Second St. N., 1st floor

Phone: 360-370-7473

Mail: 350 Court Street, No. 1, Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, RCW Chapter 42.56 et al.

From: Bob Jean
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 2:56 PM
To: DL - Council; DL - Department Heads
Subject: FW: PIC Grant

Fyi…not sure if this answers all the questions involved, but it’s a start…

From: Mark Tompkins
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 2:54 PM
To: Bob Jean
Cc: John Manning
Subject: PIC Grant

Bob,

John indicated that council member Miller had a few questions regarding the PIC grant.  Attached is a copy of the semi-annual report that both Ed Hale and I completed and sent to the State Department of Health today.  The grant is just beginning and the QAPP has been completed which will allow the sampling to begin just in time for the rainy season.  Ed & I will continue to work together to implement this grant.

Please call or email if you have any questions regarding this grant.

Mark Tompkins

____________________________________________________________________

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge