San Juan County's Lil Wayne

The lawsuit against the County for holding secret meetings about the Critical Areas Ordinances (CAOs) is at the deposition stage. Thus far, the three Council members who allegedly took part in the secret meetings have been deposed. Depositions have been taken from Lovel Pratt, Richard Fralick, and Patty Miller in that order. Shireene Hale is scheduled for deposition this coming Thursday.

The transcripts for the depositions will be available shortly, and we will post them. However, so as not to interfere with the discovery process, the Trojan Heron won't be releasing any details until after Shireene Hale has been deposed at the earliest. If further depositions are subsequently scheduled, we may reconsider our timing, but our hope is to share the transcripts sooner rather than later.

Once you see the transcripts, you'll be able to answer the riddle of who in the County most resembles Lil Wayne. Based on the evidence gathered so far, the case against the County seems to have substantial merit and is growing stronger.

Lawsuits cost money. The Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) is the organization that brought the suit, and yesterday, they put out a press release which included a request for help in funding the lawsuit.

Below is the CAPR press release, and if you are interested in getting to the bottom of the secret meetings and their affect on the CAO process, please consider a donation.
_________________________________________________________

Citizen’s Alliance for Property Rights,

San Juan Chapter, (CAPR) Lawsuit Update

On October 12, 2012 a lawsuit was filed against San Juan County for violations of Washington State’s Open Public Meetings Act (“OPMA”). The complaint alleges that “Individual Council members participated in three-person subcommittee meetings,” and they knew, or should have known, “that their actions were in violation of the OPMA.” Dennis Reynolds of the DDR Law firm is representing CAPR in this legal action.

The CAO/SMP Implementation Team or Committee included Council Members Lovel Pratt, Richard Fralick, and Patty Miller. The “Team” also included Jon Cain of the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, planning staff, various consultants, DOE, and the County Administrator. During the 25 or more meetings of the Implementation Team, “ideas and policies are brought forward, discussed, narrowed and discarded and approaches are formulated.” (Gaylord memo 4/25/12).  Decisions were made and action was taken.

Even though it was listed as part of the official CAO “public process,” the public was not allowed to attend these meetings. There was no public notice and no minutes were taken. The 3 Committee members reported back to the full Council with their recommendations.

The schedule to pass this CAO legislation before year’s end was hurried along by the Committee before two of their members left office (Lovel Pratt and Richard Fralick). The 3 Committee members Lovel Pratt, Richard Fralick, and Patty Miller, voted as a block for final passage of the five CAO Elements. (3 Council members can’t pass legislation, but in a body of 6 they can stop anything from passing with a tie vote).

CAPR believes that open and transparent government is the right of every citizen. We should not have to go to court to enforce it. Although the actions of the Council were not consistent with the law, it explains why public testimony was ignored, science was rejected, and people were only allowed limited time to speak before they were rudely cut off. The decisions had already been made in the backroom with staff and consultants calling the shots. In this case the people were treated disrespectfully and their concerns dismissed.

Eighty-five percent of the voters in San Juan County voted in favor of transparent government in the last election. It was so important that we added strict language to our Home Rule Charter to eliminate any confusion. It shouldn’t matter if the subject is the budget, solid waste, or the CAO, the County Council should not be allowed to ban the public and the press while discussing policy decisions in secret subcommittees. Transparency in government and fairness in the deliberation of ideas and policies is the goal of this lawsuit. We hope you will support our efforts. 

Donations to the San Juan CAPR legal fund can be sent to P.O. Box 1866, Friday Harbor, WA.

Beware The Voting Bloc

Some commenters have requested that the Trojan Heron reprint a letter from John Evans that was carried in some of the papers. Given that we just elected Jamie Stephens as Council Chair, and given that Stephens holds two positions with the local Democratic Party, and given that candidates Byers, Stephens, and Pratt were all endorsed by the Democratic Party, I think it is very timely to reprint John Evans' letter.

Evans also has a great letter in today's Island Guardian. Please have a look at that letter too.

By the way, the Trojan Heron has always said that we do not think either Party has particular relevance to local issues. Our local government continues to seem like a grant-grubbing runaway train that listens to no one. That's a problem (looking for a solution) that is irrelevant to Party loyalty. No Party, or any group of people, has been able to solve that problem yet. Do you think the people receiving these endorsements will?

___________________________________________________________

To the editor:

I recently had a conversation with an Orcas Island neighbor who is helping the SJC Democrats choose and field candidates for the upcoming County Council primary election. When I expressed surprise that the local SJC Democrat party was politically active in the non-partisan Council races he laughed at how naive I was being.

He told me the SJC Democrat activists were shocked when their two Council candidates on San Juan Island, incumbents Lovel Pratt and Howie Rosenfeld lost their elections to non-partisan candidates this November. Both Lovel and Howie had campaigned from the Democrat booth at the County Fair and held “public” meetings at the Democrat headquarters in Friday Harbor. The belief was that a SJC Democrat endorsement for a candidate and local Democrat Party support made winning an election almost a sure thing in San Juan County.

I guess I really am naive. I actually believe that Council candidates should follow rules under the Charter and conduct non-partisan campaigns. If candidates are willing to fudge the clear rules under the Charter, it begs the question of what other matters will they be willing to ignore? The barely disguised partisan campaigns of the two candidates who lost their Council seat elections may have seen voters say yes to the Charter and no to partisan politics.

The political parties in SJC County should have the integrity to follow the rules of the Charter. They should be scrupulous in not giving any hint of support for one Council candidate or another, either up front or behind the scenes. The San Juan County Charter gained broad public support because citizens were tired of party politics and the political activities of special interests such as the Friends of the San Juan’s.

Should individuals, independent of their political party preference work on behalf of the candidates they feel best represent their choice to be elected to the non-partisan Council? Absolutely, but lets follow the Charter and the law and keep political parties and special interest organizations at arms length.

Thank you for listening.

John Evans, former SJC County Commissioner
Served as an elected Republican in partisan elections prior to the adoption of the SJC Charter

MRC WTF?

Here's the text of an email to the new Council from a constituent (see below). If you've been following recent events regarding the Marine Resources Committee (MRC), you will have noted that they seem to have a problem with authority, specifically the Council's authority. Back in November, Linda Lyshall of the MRC sat in front of the Council and told them that the MRC reported to the Northwest Straits Commission, not the County Council. Then, in the past week, we find out the MRC has been corresponding with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) about fish window closures*, and then cc'ing the Council after the fact.

Business as usual for the MRC.

I apologize for my recent barrage of comments, but given that the Council is addressing the committees issue, I wanted to raise a few more points about the MRC that have troubled me, as a lawyer, for some time.

First, is it true that one of the tribes paid for the MRC coordinator’s salary for 6 months, and if so, isn’t that a conflict of interest, given that the tribes have repeatedly threatened to sue the County if they are not happy with the “all shoreline is critical” and sea level rise provisions that Council enacts?

Second, has the MRC figured out where the $17,000 came from? This money is almost certainly grant funds provided to the County (although I understand that a few dollars may be contributions, which fact raises its own issues—is the MRC authorized to solicit, accept and spend donations?). Grant funds come with obligations that the state and federal governments take seriously, and the County is almost certainly on the hook for them. In my experience, grant funds are tightly supervised and an accounting rendered quarterly or annually, depending on the program.

Third, I did not understand why the MRC sought and why the prior Council granted the MRC $10,000 out of County “rainy day” funds for a coordinator. The MRC is legally authorized to perform two functions, so far as my legal research has gotten: advise Council on marine matters and advise Council on which projects should be funded through the salmon recovery program. The “Lead Entity” coordinator seems to be the natural coordinator for the second responsibility. The MRC members are supposed to be experts in the relevant areas, with the exception of the general citizen member. That being the case, it is a bit puzzling why the MRC would need additional staff support. They already have a third County staffer preparing minutes, which is something else that is puzzling. Based on PRA documents that I have reviewed, I believe that the current MRC coordinator has even undertaken to revise and amplify the “contractual requirements” demanded of the County beyond those originally proposed by the NWSC/Ecology, to include more “work.” Negotiating against the County, as it were. Given the fact that NWSC funding (and most other state and federal funding) is drying up, that does not seem wise, even if allowing a County employee to write his or her own position description ever made sense.

Fourth, the County allocated $10,000 to the MRC conditionally in the 2013 budget, based on what was unearthed about the MRC “mystery” funds recently brought to light. I believe that a decision whether to charge those costs against the MRC mystery funds instead should be teed up before the end of the current 6-month obligation.

Finally, I assume that Council and the Prosecuting Attorney will be conferring on the committee issues. I have raised several and the PA has agreed that, in the two specific cases, the committees had exceeded their authority.

* note the original post said that the letter concerned closures on the west side, whereas the letter actually deals with extending the work window closures in marine areas to protect juvenile salmon. A copy of the letter is available from the linked article in the Island Guardian.