The Biggest Stories Behind the Shortest Agenda Items

There is a brief agenda item for the upcoming Tuesday Council Meeting. It says:

COUNCIL & COUNTY MANAGER UPDATES: Appointment of Dale Roundy, Pete Moe and Richard Grout to the Planning Commission.

It would appear from the wording of the agenda that our Council has already decided who the appointments should be, but that would have required the Council to have taken action already, outside of a public meeting. That wouldn't do that, would they? But that's not the most interesting aspect of these appointments. Read on.

Let's look at each of these appointments. But first, let's explain the purported process being used by the current Council regarding appointments. Appointments for the Planning Commission (like most advisory committees) have a certain geographic assignment within the County. For instance, Dick Grout would be filling a position from San Juan. Pete Moe would be filling a position from Orcas. Dale Roundy would be filling a position from Lopez.

Furthermore, according to the out-of-date protocol being used by the current Council, the Councilman representing each vacancy brings forward a nominee for a vote before the entire Council. Therefore, Richard (Dick) Grout is Bob Jarman's nominee from San Juan Island (Jarman's residency district). Pete Moe is Rick Hughes' nominee from Orcas Island (Hughes' residency district). Dale Roundy is Jamie Stephens' nominee from Lopez Island (Stephens' residency district).

Let's look at the appointees from the bottom up and examine what they have to offer to the public good.

Dick Grout - he was the Planning Director for San Juan County who urged the BOCC to fully plan under the GMA, way back in 1990. After leaving his county position, Grout was employed by the Department of Ecology for a couple of decades and headed up their Bellingham Office. Since his days as San Juan County Planning Director, Grout has been very vocal and involved in shoreline issues, even up to the current day where he has been a reliable opponent of the Honeywells. Grout also has been a candidate to be our County Manager in the past. TH readers may also remember that Grout has surfaced in previous TH articles, particularly as he was associated with an email about the Council campaign four years ago, talking about Lisa Byers and Laura Jo Severson.

Dick Grout, Jim Slocumb and myself are all willing to walk with Lisa for doorbelling. Jim can put together maps and information lists and can map out routes to walk. I truly believe it will be the difference in winning the election. I’ll point to Laura Jo Severson as my proof. Ron Zee, Jim Slocumb and me took a short grandmotherly type, new to the island, that couldn’t string together a paragraph and got her to within 99 votes of Rich Peterson simply by doorbelling. Think what an articulate woman from Orcas could do.

Why would Bob Jarman put Dick Grout forward as his choice for the Planning Commission? Seems like strange political bedfellows. Reports are, however, that both Jarman and Mike Thomas are still in trouble with Ecology over the Portland Fair wetland situation. Reports are that the Attorney General (AG) is investigating Jarman and Thomas quite seriously, and Jarman/Thomas can't seem to shake the AG. Reports are that Jarman has been going around town asking specific people for their help in getting Ecology to back off. Was Dick Grout one of them?

Dick Grout chimed in about the "civil investigation demand" related to the purported Medicaid fraud on San Juan Island. Grout revealed his extensive experience with the AG as well as his usual "guilty until proven innocent" attitude in a letter to the Journal this past November. Maybe Grout's AG experience could come in handy in helping Jarman fight the AG too? ... if he were properly incentivized, that is. As Grout says in his Journal letter:

I worked for the state of Washington for several years before I retired. My job included regular interaction with the attorney general’s office. I’ve worked with a number of assistant attorney generals to develop similar interrogatories and “requests for production” of documents. I know from that experience that you don’t get served with one of these demands unless the attorney general’s office has good reason to believe there’s a fire beneath the smoke.

Whatever the reason for putting Grout's name forward, it must be pretty compelling for Jarman to do it. It's out of character.

[Note: in the latest version of the January 26th agenda, Grout's name has been removed].

Pete Moe - **** edited because of extreme hypocrisy ****

Dale Roundy - what if you were in charge of the water supply for a village (e.g., Jamie Stephens) and there was groundwater contamination near one of your water supply wells ... and you didn't tell anyone? Well, let's clarify, certain people knew about it. The local Planning Commissioner (Barbara Thomas) was copied on emails. The local Land Trust knew (Sandy Bishop and Rhea Miller). Even some local self-styled "environmentalists" who frequently concern themselves with water issues (Madrona Murphy) knew. So did a former Land Bank Commissioner (Nancy Greene). The soil and groundwater contamination was known to be within a short distance of one of your lesser-used water supply wells, but overall the full extent of soil and groundwater contamination was still unknown. As far as anyone knew, the contamination had been in place FOR YEARS. The last laboratory result of groundwater contamination showed that there were concentrations of benzene 10,000 times higher than the drinking water standard, but you never bothered to test for that particular contaminant at the well head of the water supply well ... so you really have no idea if the benzene and other contaminants ever got into the water supply.

So certain people knew, but it's not like you sent out a notice to your water users, or breathed a word about it to the papers.

In this case, what do all the "people-in-the-know" have in common? Well, aside from being friends and keeping one another's secrets, they all have a stake in the property values of Lopez Village, where the contamination is located. For instance, they own property in the village ... or they make their living related to development/design of village buildings ... or their relatives work in construction projects in the village ... or they are just about to finance or get bank loans for projects related to their village properties. Even if your property is not directly affected, try explaining that to a bank! It would be quite a mess if something like soil or groundwater contamination were to start busting up property sales in the village.

But that's exactly what happened. Meet Dale Roundy. Dale Roundy owns a residence across the street from the Lopez Community Land Trust (the LCLT). The LCLT is run by Sandy Bishop and Rhea Miller, and Dale Roundy's wife is on their board. Dale Roundy wanted to buy a property in the heart of Lopez Village, and Roundy had an environmental review conducted first. The review turned up the fact that there was contamination in a nearby property, also in the heart of the village, that had never been cleaned up or even fully delineated. As a result, Roundy backed out. The sale collapsed. Other potential buyers behind Roundy backed out too. A minor stir was created as information leaked out to just a few people ... but they managed to keep a lid on it, and the whole thing died down.

Now Roundy is slated to be on the Planning Commission ...

Email from Jamie Stephens to the County Health Department Manager, Mark Tompkins

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.

Catching Up (Again) - Ethics and PSSA's

As usual, there has been a lot going on, and my thanks to commenters who keep abreast of information even when I am unable to post. Here are a few recent items of particular note:

• David Dehlendorf and Friends Attorney Kyle Loring raised a stink about the fact that three Common Sense Alliance (CSA) Board members sit on the Planning Commission. Dehlenloring alleged that it was a conflict of interest since CSA is opposing the County's draft of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in court. Loring even said that the conflict was so obvious that it was "Ethics 101." If it is Ethics 101, then Dehlendorf and Loring are late to class.
  
  Unlike the Friends, CSA has never received a penny from the County and never voted to give itself grant funding. Unlike the Friends, CSA is a relative newcomer to County advisory committees. In fact, when Mike Carlson of CSA was appointed to the Planning Commission, he replaced Mike Kaill, former President of the Friends Board. Kaill's tenure on the Planning Commission coincided with the Friends opposition (including lawsuits) of the County's guesthouse legislation. Where were Dehlenloring's concerns about ethics then? Or ... when Susan Dehlendorf took a "straw poll" of Planning Commissioners regarding the CAO last year, where were the concerns about ethics?
  
  Ethics 101? It seems more like Ethics-ish 101. When Dehlenloring are interested in ethics for everybody instead of simply using the name of ethics as a tool to advance their own interests, then we're more likely to pay attention. By the way, our Prosecuting Attorney reviewed the issue and twice produced a written opinion saying there is no conflict. The Planning Commission is only an advisory body to the Council, and as such, no conflict exists.

• By now, most people have probably heard that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been armoring the beach at Watmough Bay, one of the most beloved pocket beaches in all the islands ... and certainly one of the most beloved beaches on Lopez Island. There are several incredible ironies about this story, which we will cover in greater detail in an upcoming post. First, the hard armoring isn't even protecting any structures. Second, despite all the meetings with BLM officials over the past few months about local outreach and involvement, apparently no locals knew the hard armoring project was in the works. Third, the BLM produced an Environmental Assessment of the proposed work which led to a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI). Think about that for a moment ... the federal government armored a beach in the National Monument and there are no significant impacts, and yet the Friends oppose nearly every dock and armoring project on the grounds that there are environmental impacts. Fourth, one of the contractors involved in the Watmough Bay project, Coastal Geologic Services, is the Friends "go to" consultant whenever the Friends oppose docks and armoring. It's hard to believe the Friends didn't know about the Watmough Bay project ahead of time ... and yet they said nothing, even as they opposed other armoring projects elsewhere and opposed the expansion of the Islander Resort on Fisherman Bay too. There are more ironies, but ... we'll cover them in the upcoming full post.

• Speaking of the Friends, they're at it again. One of the key strategies of the Friends is to take local issues and link them to national and international affairs, so that we become subsumed into a global matrix of restrictions based on the pretense of "local protection." Case in point was Stephanie Buffum signing a treaty to protect the Salish Sea last March. As we've seen, the Friends' megalomania becomes especially virulent when it comes into contact with grant money. Below is an email from ex-CDPD employee Elizabeth Anderson talking to the usual suspects ... Barbara Rosenkotter and Stephanie Buffum ... about (wait for it) a grant to designate our waters a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). I know ... yet another acronym. It never ends. Some of you may remember Elizabeth Anderson, whose employment with CDPD was justified by (you guessed it) a grant, and who was put in charge of writing a County Solid Waste Management Plan during the collapse of the County's solid waste management system. Her time here could not have been more fruitless and pointless.
  
  Now she is touting another "brilliant program."

__________________________________________________

From: Elizabeth Anderson

To: Barbara Rosenkotter

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:53:00 -0700

Subject: Fwd: Oil Spill Prevention - Addition to today's discussion

Attachment(s): 1

OOPS! I forgot to copy you on this.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elizabeth Anderson <ebanderson12@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Oil Spill Prevention - Addition to today's discussion
To: Stephanie Buffum <stephanie@sanjuans.org>

Stephanie - this is a brilliant program with a high degree of probability of success in preventing oil spills. However, it does not fit the NTA where I had notes that you would provide some further milestones. I attach the revised table thus far.  The only red letters are under SD 1B, where I thought you had more to add.  It may be fine as-is.

Do I need to add anything from yesterday's IC discussion?

Thanks, 

Elizabeth

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Stephanie Buffum <stephanie@sanjuans.org> wrote:

The purpose of the Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) for the Salish Sea Feasibility Study is to investigate the possible benefits and costs of enhancing the management regime  of the areas surrounding the shipping lanes surrounding the San Juan Island National Monument, through the creation of an internationally mandated Particularly Sensitive Sea Area for the Salish Sea. This potential designation can only be achieved if the area is particularly sensitive (in ecological and cultural terms) and the existing regulatory regime does not adequately protect it. Whilst such PSSA designations have been recognized in other parts of the United States and the international community, they have not been considered in the context of the highly vulnerable Salish Sea.

Goal: 

To communicate to the Salish Sea populace, including organizations, business, Tribes and First Nations and government, what important ecological and cultural values are present in the Salish Sea, their fragility, and how they will be negatively impacted upon if the risk of vessel traffic in this area is not adequately managed, as it is in other part of the United States, and similarly, within the international community. Simply, we wish to show the gaps in our regulatory protection of the Salish Sea, and an existing tool can be applied to fix this problem, to the benefit of both the ecology and the surrounding communities.

Objectives:

1.     To provide a principle campaign tool for protecting marine waters.

2.     To educate the public about what is at stake if large scale shipping traffic of potentially hazardous cargo, is not adequately regulated.

3.     To show how adequate management has been achieved in comparable areas with similar risks to the Salish Sea.

4.     To empower local groups, including Tribes and First Nations, eco-tourism operators with information for their own campaigns to protect the Salish Sea, and to learn from the experience of other communities facing similar difficulties

5.     To develop “new evidence” to bring to any review process.

6.     To provide an Alternative, which has been successfully adopted elsewhere,  to reduce the risk of an oil spill in the Salish Sea.

Audience and campaign

The audience is the general population of the Salish Sea. The request for designation will require Washington State Tribes and Canadian First Nations, federal, provincial, state and local leaders and public officials to support this designation. Key business leaders and ngo organizations in British Columbia and the US, principally within Washington State, will be essential for cultivating support for these two proposals separately in the US and in Canada. 

Cost: $35,000 for Feasibility Report. Gap: $25,000

$90,000 for full nomination in the US and Canada, conference, materials. Gap: $90,000

Quick Hits - A Heron Catchup

Despite the lack of posts, there has been a lot going on:

• The Friends have been busy. Together with Futurewise, they held three grant-funded messaging sessions disguised as "Shoreline Science Forums" (Lopez - May 10, San Juan - May 17, and Orcas - June 4). Also, they have been busy opposing shoreline stabilization projects on San Juan Island, objecting to projects by the Woodmans (project approved), Laufers (awaiting decision), and Dickinsons (awaiting decision).  In addition, the Friends continue to crank away on their CAO appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). One of the interesting claims made by the Friends in their GMHB filings is the notion that tourists to the San Juans have "investment-backed expectations" regarding their experiences here (i.e., tourists don't want to see no stinkin' houses). The Friends' relationship with tourism is a flip-floppy one. They back the Scenic Byway and like to use the supposed interests of tourists to justify anti-resident initiatives like the CAOs. However, the Friends are simultaneously opposing expansion of camping sites and RV hookups at the Lopez Islander Resort. On June 7, they held an informational meeting on Lopez with opponents of the proposed Islander expansion. I wonder if the residents who oppose the Islander expansion have any idea that the Friends would probably like to get rid of them even more.

• Susan Dehlendorf resigned from the Planning Commission. In her resignation letter (posted below), she said "I feel strongly that those individuals who are willing to work in government service deserve our gratitude and respect. I deplore the fact that public servants are subject to denigration and attacks as they do their professional work." And despite those expressed sentiments, in the very same letter Dehlendorf denigrated some of her fellow Commissioners (who are all volunteer public servants) by characterizing them as partisan representatives of special interests.

• In an interesting development, the former President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, visited the San Juans along with investors (Jamen Shively) who seek to capitalize on the legalization of marijuana in this state by developing national marijuana brands. The leadership group for this effort held a symposium last weekend on San Juan Island on the topic of marijuana and cancer. Some residents here are beginning to ask whether the San Juans should somehow get in on the ground-floor of what many are calling the "Starbucks of Pot."

• Lastly, the San Juan Journal has started a blog. We wish them the best of luck, and if you happen to stop by to read their blog, be sure to come back here and let us know what you think. Leave a comment.

Click to enlarge. Right click to download

Primary Election Day

Yes ... today is the big day.  We'll know (probably) this evening who will move on to the general election in April.

In assorted news (while we wait for the election results), the Planning Commission and the County Council held a joint session yesterday. It was reminiscent of meetings about solid waste before the citizens of this County finally got so fed up with Public Works that we took solid waste operations away from them. Planning Department staff could not have been more unhelpful yesterday. Nearly every request put to them was met with rebound requests for more staff and more money. As mentioned, we saw this sort of behavior from the old solid waste staff in the days before their downfall, where no request was too small for the County to turn down using "resource constraints" as the excuse  -- not even the installation of a suggestion box at the waste facilities was doable.

The Planning Department has now decided to fall into the same role, and apparently, it won't work on anything that it doesn't want to work on. They just hired another full-time planner, and despite "completing" the CAOs, they have no time or resources to work on any Council or Planning Commission request. Funny how that is.

I think it's time we looked at a new organizational model for the Planning Department just like we had to look at a new organization model for solid waste.

Sketchy News Details

Today has been a busy news day, with evolving stories, so only sketchy details are available. We'll tell you what we know thus far, but bear in mind this is preliminary information.

First, although Tim Blanchard was approved to sit on the Planning Commission by a 6-0 Council vote, some opponents of Blanchard's appointment are complaining that the San Juan County Code (SJCC) requires appointment by the Chair of the Council in order for the appointment to be official. Consequently, even though Chair Jamie Stephens voted for Blanchard's appointment, Stephens is getting pressure not to appoint Blanchard.

If we look at the actual San Juan County Code, here is what Chapter 2.20 says regarding membership and appointment to the Planning Commission:

2.20.080 Membership and appointment.
The planning commission shall consist of nine members appointed by the chair of the County council, with approval of a majority of the County council; provided, that each member of the council shall submit to the chair a list of nominees residing in his/her council district and the chair shall make his/her appointments from such lists so that as nearly as mathematically possible each council district shall be equally represented on the commission (RCW 36.70.080). Planning commission members in positions one through six shall reside in the County council district with the same number. Planning commission members in positions seven, eight and nine shall reside, for position seven, in voting district one, two, or three, for position eight, in voting district four or five, and for position nine, in voting district six. (Ord. 14-2007 § 4)

Frankly, there probably isn't a single person on the Planning Commission appointed according to the letter of this law. If Blanchard's appointment is questionable, then the appointment of every current Commissioner is questionable as well.

Next up regarding sketchy news of the day, Councilman and candidate Bob Jarman is reportedly in the hospital undergoing heart valve replacement surgery. We wish Jarman a speedy recovery and quick return to health ... and an expeditious return to the Winter Council as well.

Next on the list is the awaited deposition of Jon Cain in the lawsuit concerning the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and the CAOs. This is the lawsuit brought by the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) against the County. Deputy Prosecutor Cain's deposition was scheduled to occur this week, but it has been postponed. Reportedly, Prosecuting Attorney Randy Gaylord is unwilling to proceed without a subpoena. That can be arranged, apparently, and the deposition is likely to occur later this month.

Lastly, Ron Zee, who is already Conservation District President, Head of the Madrona Institute (which is the fiscal agent of the Stewardship Network), and until recently the Head of the local Democratic Party, has been proposed as a possibility to Chair the Action Agenda Oversight Group (AAOG) Local Implementation Organization (LIO). Translation -- Zee could become head of the local Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) organization that doles out grants to the non-profit he runs (Madrona Institute) which funds the PSP EcoNet (Stewardship Network) ... or the Network as we have referred to them in shorthand.

If you remember from earlier posts, the Network is the collection of 24 organizations that were paid by the PSP to spread specific messages about our environment and economy.

Controversy about Blanchard? ... when Ron Zee's overlapping connections to state and local government are dizzying?

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #60 - Group-Think Echo Chamber

You may remember a blog post called Consensus Ineptitude from back in July. It concerned a question put to Milene Henley, our independently-elected County Auditor, regarding the cost of the CAO. It was a reasonable question. John Lackey of the Planning Commission wanted Henley's independent opinion of the potential costs of the CAO. In response, Lackey got a three-page non-answer.

Now we have some emails from that time. They show that, rather than give an independent assessment of the costs, Henley engages in group think with other members of the County echo chamber to provide a reply that is less than honest.

The County puts more time and effort into crafting non-answers than answers.  And where is the Patty Miller who believes,

We must find a balance between adopting regulations that comply with the state law and protect the critical areas, are enforceable, and are as simple as possible but yet allow property owners the maximum flexibility to use their property as they see fit"

 ... because the Patty Miller who believes that has not been showing up at Council meetings.
_______________________________________________________________

From: Milene Henley <Mileneh@sanjuanco.com>

Date: March 27, 2012 9:25:36 AM PDT

To: Patty Miller <PattyM@sanjuanco.com>

Cc: Pete Rose <PeteR@sanjuanco.com>, Rene Beliveau <reneb@sanjuanco.com>

Subject: RE: CAO

Hi, Patty,
I definitely would not have quoted you, even without your admonition.  This is clearly a politically sensitive matter.  I had already considered the fact that planning and permitting (other than county long-term planning) are supposed to be fee-supported. The clear implication is that the people developing their land will pay for implementation of CAO.  But I agree that we need to think this thing through, and to understand better what those costs are likely to be, before we discuss this publicly.

And yes, Mr. Lackey definitely has a point of view, as do most people on the subject of CAO.  And I know that you, of all Council members, will be measured, rational and balanced in your approach to adoption.  It is a responsibility I do not envy you.

I will take your, Pete's, and Rene's responses to my email and synthesize them into a responsible reply to Mr. Lackey.  And I will share that reply with you before I send it out.

Milene

F. Milene Henley
San Juan County Auditor
(360) 370-7558


-----Original Message-----
From: Patty Miller
Sent: Tue 3/27/2012 9:16 AM
To: Milene Henley; Pete Rose; Rene Beliveau
Subject: RE: CAO

Milene,

Pete and Rene may disagree with me but I believe the answer is that the cost associated with implementing the new CAO will be borne by the applicants wishing to develop their property.  The permitting department is essentially budgeted as a zero cost budget.  Permit fees are adjusted to reflect the cost of processing those permits.  I expect that there will be some initial costs in terms of time and training but I do not expect those to be significant.

HAVING SAID THAT PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THAT ANSWER AS ONE THAT IS GIVEN WITHOUT SIGNFICANT CONCERN AS TO THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT ANSWER. PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD THAT ANSWER AS A QUOTE FROM ME WITHOUT INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS. I am confident that this statement will show up on every blog, newspaper, and public opinion piece on the topic very quickly. For that reason I do not want it to be taken out of context or implied that I said it flippantly, without significant concern, or stated that I am resigned to it.

In my opinion this will be the greatest challenge that the council will face as we begin our review of the proposed amendments.  We must find a balance between adopting regulations that comply with the state law and protect the critical areas, are enforceable, and are as simple as possible but yet allow property owners the maximum flexibility to use their property as they see fit.  Whether or not that would be best accomplished through a redlined version of the existing regulations or a new version that incorporates both the existing and new solutions is subjective.

I disagree entirely with Mr. Lackey statement that the "current mindset will be to pass this wetlands section as soon as possible".  I find this process entirely frustrating but one that I have to work within where the body that is ultimately responsible for the decision is the last to see and comment on the proposed changes and we are attacked for "micro managing" if we get too involved too early in the process.  I have every intention of taking the time we need to try to develop the best ordinance we can, given the need to achieve the balance I mention above.  I just want to get started on it.....

Thanks, Patty

-----Original Message-----
From: Milene Henley
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 8:15 AM
To: Pete Rose; Rene Beliveau; Patty Miller
Subject: FW: CAO

Hi, Pete, Patty & Rene,
I'm forwarding to you an email I received today, following a phone call yesterday.  John Lackey, a local real estate agent, is the sender.

John's question has to do with the cost of CAO, after it is adopted.  He asked me, specifically, if any thought has been given to budgeting for the interpretation, implementation, and defense of CAO once adopted.  The defense--assuming there will be lawsuits--seems the most difficult to "budget" for.  But I would distill part of his question down to:  do we expect the issuance of permits to be more time-consuming than currently, once CAO is adopted, and have we given thought to how we will budget for that additional expense, if we expect it.

I would like to be able to give John an answer to his direct question - recognizing that his more general "rant" is unanswerable.  Do we anticipate significant costs of implementation, and should we anticipate additional FTEs in the 2013 budget because of it?

Thanks,
Milene

F. Milene Henley
San Juan County Auditor
(360) 370-7558

-----Original Message-----
From: John Lackey [mailto:jdl@clearwire.net]
Sent: Tue 3/27/2012 8:05 AM
To: Milene Henley
Subject: CAO

Milene,

Thanks for taking the time to chat with me yesterday. As you well know we are wrestling with the proposed CAO rewrites of the existing ordinance.
Aside from what I think about the proposals in front of us on the planning commission in regards to civil rights, property rights, the taking of property, I also have grave concerns as to how this whole situation is going to be budgeted. From what I hear off the record from some of the staff at planning, this is already becoming a nightmare. The possible wetlands map has included every mud puddle and manmade pond in the county. No one in a leadership position as far as I can tell has given the slightest inclination as to how this is going to handled once it becomes the law of the land.
Ultimately where does this responsibility lie? An even larger question that comes up is the cost to the county of defending itself when the lawsuits are filed. I am sorry if this has turned into a rant on my part, but this Friday there seems to be a very good chance that this mess is going to be passed along to the council where the current mindset will be to pass this wetlands section as soon as possible. I have no idea how you feel about the proposed rewrites, but I believe the unintended consequences are going to sink the county financially. Any thoughts you might share with me would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

John Lackey

Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #13 - Some Are More Equal

Do you know what a fumblerule is? It's a rule of grammar that contains an example contrary to the advice that it gives. For instance, "Don't use no double negatives" is a fumblerule. Another is "Stamp out and abolish redundancy."

Speaking of stamping out and abolishing, that's exactly what (at least) half the Council members wanted to do to an ardent supporter of the Trojan Heron, at the urging of two Friends. Over the last couple of days, one of our readers, Mike Carlson, has been the target of a County witch hunt simply because he praised the Trojan Heron's CAO commentary. Mike serves on the Planning Commission, which by the way, has concluded its deliberations of the CAOs. Nevertheless, Mike's praise of our CAO stance so incensed David Dehlendorf and Stephanie Buffum that they asked Council members Howie Rosenfeld, Lovel Pratt, and Patty Miller to have Mike censured or even removed from the Planning Commission. Simultaneously, Dehlendorf and others lobbied the Planning Commission Chair, Brian Ehrmantraut, to take the matter under serious consideration for the next Planning Commission meeting.

Apparently, those three Council members and their Friends really thought they had something. The Council members were outraged enough by Mike's behavior to ask Randy Gaylord, the Prosecuting Attorney, what could be done about Mike. That's interesting because Rosenfeld/Pratt/Miller showed no apparent outrage when Susan Dehlendorf took a straw poll (forbidden by Roberts Rules) during Planning Commission proceedings about CAO shorelines? Where was their outrage when Howie Rosenfeld expressed bias about the CAOs in a meeting with the Attorney General? Where was their outrage when Patty Miller proceeded with Council hearings on the Fish & Wildlife CAO before the Planning Commission had voted on it?  Wow ... glass houses all over the place, I'd say. No wonder some people are beginning to refer to this group as the County Clowncil.  Also, I guess we now know what that new "Law and Justice" sales tax was for: to save the County from Mike Carlson and the Trojan Heron!

One of "their" favorite tactics is to accuse dissenters like Mike of being uncivil, unethical, or unprofessional (see emails below). This is where the analogy to fumblerules comes into play because the repeat accusers are the embodiment of the behavior they purportedly oppose. "They" are a tableau vivant of fumblerules regarding civility, ethics, and professionalism. They behave like a civility lynch mob. The Friends and their friends in high places have enjoyed such hegemony here for so long, that any criticism apparently causes stress they are unable to cope with.

Why is this a CAO flaw? Because it shows the shenanigans in our County government, and it illustrates how the CAOs will be used for witch hunts. Those with influence and power will be able to manipulate the CAO and government apparatus to serve their own ends at the expense of the rest of society. The CAOs are so complicated and vague they can be construed to mean whatever "they" need it to mean in order to go after undesirables. Fortunately, it didn't work ... this time ... because the central matter here is the Constitution, not the CAOs per se, and our Prosecuting Attorney knows his First Amendment. But they'll try again. It's what "they" do.

The CAOs just give "them" more tools at their beck and call. As we keep saying here at the Trojan Heron, the CAOs are not about the environment. The CAOs are about control and punishment by a very select few against the rest of us. Think about it; within the course of one business day, emails from just two well-connected CAO advocates were able to mobilize HALF the Council to consider action against a law-abiding, upstanding, long-time islander. Reflect on that kind of power compared to the deaf ears encountered by armies of concerned citizens showing up in person at Council meetings in a futile effort to have their CAO concerns addressed. The entire Mike Carlson incident lends further credibility to the Orwellian adage that some are more equal than others.

____________________________________________________________________

From: Lovel Pratt <LovelP@sanjuanco.com>

Subject: FW: Immediate Request - Planning Commissioner Attack on San Juan County Resident

Date: August 13, 2012 2:09:35 PM PDT

To: Patty Miller <PattyM@sanjuanco.com>

Cc: Bob Jean <bobj@sanjuanco.com>

Hi Patty,

How do you propose this be dealt with (and the similar request from David D. to Brian E.)?

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: Stephanie Buffum [mailto:stephanie@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:57 AM
To: DL - Council; Maureen See
Subject: Immediate Request - Planning Commissioner Attack on San Juan County Resident

Dear County Council,

The Trojan Heron blog and its endorsement and forwarding to our island community by San Juan County Planning Commissioner Mike Carlson is unprofessional and unbecoming as a public servant.  Mr. Carlson’s email below, which he sent as an attack to Ms. Alderton, endorses a statement that "Janet Alderton should be sent to the asylum along with the rest of her crazed Friends.”  This type of an attack on a resident by a San Juan County Planning Commissioner requires immediate attention.   As a member of a County advisory council, we request that the County Council reprimand  Planning Commissioner Mike Carlson or remove him from public service. Sincerely, Stephanie Buffum Field Executive Director FRIENDS OF THE SAN JUANS POB 1344 Friday Harbor, WA  98250 _________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Randall Gaylord <RandallG@sanjuanco.com> Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:25 PM Subject: Planning Commission Member Mike Carlson To: DL - Council <Council@sanjuanco.com> Cc: "Brian Ehrmantraut (bae@alumni.princeton.edu)" <bae@alumni.princeton.edu>, Bob Jean <bobj@sanjuanco.com>, Jon Cain <JonC@sanjuanco.com> BACKGROUND Three council members have asked for my opinion about the actions of Mike Carlson in writing an email which two citizens have brought the attention of the County Council as being offensive. This review is made quickly and done in an email to save time. Because this email incorporates items from other sources, my words are shown in large, bold print. FACTS Every case involving facts regarding speech – whether spoken or written – requires a detailed understanding of the facts and an examination of the exact words used. I understand the allegedly offensive email of Mike Carlson is as follows: --- On Mon, 8/13/12, Mike Carlson <mcarlson@rockisland.com> wrote: From: Mike Carlson <mcarlson@rockisland.com> Subject: The Trojan Heron To: "mike" <mcarlson@rockisland.com> Cc: "Janet Alderton" <jmalderton@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, August 13, 2012, 6:28 AM http://trojanheron.blogspot.com/ Dear Fellow Islanders, The attached link says it well. How many of you "Garden Variety Islanders" have EVER heard of any toxic levels of any of the compounds that Ms. Alderton has cited as the reason your house must be kept further away any possible wetland than it can be now. I have not. The Common Sense Alliance paid thousands of dollars for soil testing around several home sites and one "island scale" industrial site located un-buffered right above a pristine wetland ( Lawson Construction's yard). These tests did not show there were toxic levels of anything within harmful levels. I have cc'd Ms Alderton in this e-mail so maybe she will help to educate all of you about how bad your home site is for the environment....I will forward. This type of regulation is like being told you have a flat tire on your car and being told thatv you need to replace your boat motor to fix it!! Mike The blog at trojanheron.blogspot.com, that is referred to the Carlson email is entitled “Flaw #8 – Science Fiction”, is authored by “ECK,” and is set forth at full length below for your convenience: Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #8 - Science Fiction Friends Board member, Janet Alderton, who never met a person she couldn't lecture, has a letter in a local news blog about unfounded CAO fears. In it, she claims that the new CAOs will hardly change anything for homeowners, which (if true) just begs the obvious question of why are we changing them at all? The fact is that the new CAOs will change everything for our community, but if Janet is genuinely interested in unfounded claims, perhaps she should re-read the text of the CAOs which she helped to write. Here's an excerpt from the proposed CAO for wetlands. As discussed in the BAS Synthesis, runoff from areas influenced by human development is well characterized (National Research Council, 2008) and is often contaminated with an array of pollutants, including: those from lawn and garden chemicals (containing both active ingredients and surfactants that can negatively affect aquatic species); building materials including pressure treated lumber (containing copper chromated arsenate), zinc and copper impregnated shingles and roofing strips, and roofing materials containing phthalates (plastic gutters and downspouts, roofing felt, roof membranes); fertilizers; rodent poisons; termite spray and other insecticides; moss control products; deicers; contaminants associated with automobiles, including oil, antifreeze, rubber and metals from the wear of tires, brakes and other parts; and sediment from dirt and gravel driveways. Many of these contaminants are directly associated with the choices and practices of the property owner and are difficult or impossible to regulate. If they are allowed to enter surface water bodies, these pollutants can contaminate and become concentrated in the food web, negatively affecting aquatic habitats and species. Is well characterized? Is often contaminated with an array of pollutants? Are impossible to regulate? Can contaminate and become concentrated in the food web? Talk about unfounded! There isn't a shred of evidence about de manifestis concentrations of pollution from any of those hypothetical sources in this county. It's a specious premise, and it displays the fundamental error with all the CAOs: "they" have assumed a problem without any evidence. Then, "they" have "solved" the problem with draconian measures. It's equivalent to a faith healer diagnosing you with cancer or some other horrible disease, and then laying his hands upon you and saying you are cured. Well, many folks don't want the County's hands upon them, or anyone else's hands either. Leave us alone. We're not sick, and we don't need your "help." The CAOs read like science fiction because that is what they are. I wish Scotty could beam us all up. Posted by ECK at 4:50 PM 4 comments: The blog trojanheron.blogspot.com allows posts to be made to the blog. Four posts are found after clicking on the words “4 comments”. Those four comments are set forth in full length as follows: 4 Comments Close this windowJump to comment form 1 – 4 of 4 Anonymous said... The Letter is also mostly false August 10, 2012 6:04 PM ECK said... I presume you are talking about Janet Alderton's letter at sanjuanislander.com referred to in this post. Yes, I agree. It is mostly false. What else would you have expected? August 10, 2012 6:08 PM Anonymous said... A few posts back someone gave some numbers showing a large percentage of the shoreline parcels have absentee ownership. I live in an area of the shoreline and I walk a lot. I believe it is true. There is no one there almost year round on most of these properties. So maybe there is a structure, a house, these incredible claims of pollution can be claimed against, but there are no people. No tires and brakes, no human activity, nothing. Dull as dog shit, none of that either, nothing is going on, nothing is polluting anything because there is no activity which would do so, the whole thing is a fairy tale. August 10, 2012 6:56 PM Cotton Mather said... One of the oldest jokes and stereotypes in American popular culture and literature is the scolding Puritanical hypocrite whose self-absorbed self-satisfied self-righteousness so completely blots out any semblance of mindful self-reflection that they cannot begin to understand their hilarious tendency towards self-contradiction. Yes the letter is mostly false, but that is not intentional it is simply the by-product of the fundamentalist mind-set that produced both it, and the rest of the ill-considered fantasy behind the CAO. Alderton's letter is truly funny. But the scary part is that she is one of the insiders, one of the real framers of this madness. She should be sent to the asylum along with the rest of her crazed Friends. Leave us alone. August 11, 2012 10:30 AM Stephanie Buffum, the executive director of the Friends claims that Mr. Carlson’s email is “an endorsement” of the comments of Cotton Mather; that it is “an attack” on Ms. Alderton that is “unprofessional and unbecoming as a public servant”. Ms Buffum asks the council to “reprimand Mike Carlson or remove him from public service.” SHORT ANALYSIS We do not agree with Ms. Buffum that Mr. Carlson’s email amounts to “an endorsement” of the comments of Cotton Mather; an attack on Ms. Alderton; or represents some action that is so offensive that it requires action by the Council. After identifying the blog, Mr. Carlson writes “the attached link says it well.” The link takes you to the page without the comments. Mr. Carlson does not mention the comment of Cotton Mather and it requires an extra step to go to another webpage to see the comments. On my computer, this required an extra step to open the page in a new window. I do not believe that the written word shows that Mr. Carlson “endorses” the comments of Cotton Mather. If any person refers others a blog or news story together with an opinion of approval, it is not an “endorsement” of the comments attached to the blog or news story. Another point to consider is that Mr. Carlson invited Ms. Alderton to reply to him by copying her on his email. While not determinative, it is not consistent with the email being “an attack.” Another point to consider is that Mr. Carlson was not acting in his official capacity as a Planning Commission member. The planning commission is an advisory committee of the County Council and the Council that has a representation of many diverse interests. Like other advisory committees, the Council has established rules for the discipline and order of its members when acting in an official capacity. We do not believe that SJCC 2.116.310, as set forth below, is triggered by the email of Mr. Carlson. 2.116.310 Discipline and order. A. In the event an advisory body member fails to comply with a decision of the chair or any of these rules, the chair may declare the member out of order. B. With respect to a member who is out of order, the following discipline may be imposed at the discretion of the chair: 1. The member may be warned without sanction; 2. The member may be excluded from discussion on the item of business at hand; 3. The member may be excluded from discussion of all items of business; or 4. For gross interference with the meeting, the member may be removed from that meeting. C. A member who is declared out of order has the right to appeal the decision of the chair both as to the question of whether the member was out of order and as to the question of discipline. The advisory body shall approve or deny the appeal by a majority vote of those present, except that the extreme sanction of removal from a meeting shall be upheld only by the vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the advisory body. D. If the advisory body upholds the declaration that the member is out of order or the discipline, the member has the right to dissent for the record before the imposition of sanctions. E. These sanctions should be used sparingly and only to the extent necessary to keep order. F. In the event a member is repeatedly out of order or whose actions are disruptive and counterproductive, a two-thirds majority of the advisory body may request that the County council replace this member. (Ord. 12-2008 § 14) Finally, we must remember that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution freely protects freedom of speech and freedom of association. Discipline or even scolding members of volunteer commissions for actions that are not taken in an official capacity, and not subject to the procedures of SJCC 8.116.310 present a genuine risk could be construed as a “prior restraint” and is otherwise improper. The fact that a Planning Commission member maintains an email list, are shares ideas with members of the Common Sense Alliance is not a basis for taking action. There is no reference to Mr. Carlson as a member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Carlson referred only to a group he is known to be associated with – the Common Sense Alliance – and Mr. Carlson reported the findings of some studies looking for pollutants that countermand the statements of Ms. Alderton. We note the Supreme Court has only excluded – and not protected – an employee’s speech when the employee was making a statement in his or her official capacity. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1960 (2006). Nothing we have been shown indicates that Mr. Carlson was acting in his official capacity as a member of the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION You should proceed with extreme caution whenever you are concerned about the discipline of an employee or volunteer because of speech or activities that occur outside of the workplace. Given the facts as presented, I recommend that no action be taken by the Council or the Planning Commission. Please call if you have any questions. Randy Randall K. Gaylord San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney/Coroner 350 Court Street First Floor PO Box 760 Friday Harbor, WA 360-378-4101

Because They Said So!

At least one legal definition of collusion says it is an agreement between two or more individuals to perpetuate fraud or commit an illegal act. Is that what our Planning Commissioners did on May 25, 2012?

Normally, collusion occurs in secret, but apparently the Planning Commission has the chutzpah to engage in potentially illegal "votes" out in the open, during a recorded public meeting.  They took a "straw poll" to shut down debate on an important deliberative aspect of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat CAO before even considering the facts.  

Bias. What this "straw poll" shows is bias. Pure and simple prejudice expressed on the record and for the purpose of cutting off debate and discussion.

All shorelines here are critical. If you want to know why, ask one of the Planning Commissioners who voted to shut down debate before it had even begun. The only answer they can give you is "because we said so."

All in the interests of "moving forward," as Susan Dehlendorf says. That's a euphemism meaning that you and your rights get run over so they can "move forward."

Maybe The Planning Commission Will Approve This Too!

For many months, there has been a link in the sidebar of this blog titled "Coming to a Home Near You" that takes you to an article about the use of drones to conduct domestic surveillance. Little did the Trojan Heron know that such surveillance actually has been conducted by EPA for the past ten years.

EPA is using "flyovers" to assess compliance with the Clean Water Act. I wonder how long before the Friends, the Planning Commission, or the Council will endorse those methods here. Maybe there's a grant in it for them.

EPA drone that conducts Clean Water Act "flyovers."