Conservative Charter Review agenda: “Limit, restrict or prohibit, if possible, the County Council’s powers found in 8.20 and 8.23…” / Facebook post, Sj Robson

dow Feb 215 hrs  July 24, 2015  Sandy Robson

It is clear from a 2-page document (shown in 2 separate photos) attached to Charter Review Commissioner Chet Dow’s February 21, 2015 email to Dave Brumbaugh, what the goal of conservative Charter commissioners was/is. A photo of Dow’s Feb. 21 email is shown in a photo.

After the commission would pass Charter Amendment 1 which seeks district-only voting, then they sought to find a way to lock that in as long as possible. The excerpt quoted below was the stated goal in the document:charter alternatives article 8

“Limit, restrict or prohibit, if possible, the County Council’s powers found in 8.20 and 8.23 which enable the Council to propose amendments to the County Home Rule Charter. Do so in such a way as to specifically only address the way in which Council members are chosen by voters in general elections, as specified in Art. 2, Sect. 2.13.”

In the 2-page document, Commissioner Dow listed 4 alternatives toward the conservative commissioners goal of tying the hands of the county council’s ability to put forth charter amendments on the ballot.

The document in the email was dated February 18, so the conservative Charter commissioners were already aware of the alternate idea to require a unanimous 7-0 vote approval by county council in order to propose a Charter amendment.

charter alternatives 1 and 2“ALTERNATIVE # 2
Amend §8.20 to read: “Charter amendments may be proposed by the Commission, the County Council (except amendments related to changing matters approved by a 2/3 vote of the public will require a unanimous 7 vote approval), or by the public.
This one might be open to the same criticism as the oneimmediately above.
§§ 8.20 and/or 8.23 dealing with Charter Amendments….continued”

So, if they already had this concept in mid-February, why did the conservative commission majority wait until the very last minute of the Charter Review process to then revise the language in amendments 3 and 10 (now called propositions 2 and 3)? Because, it is my understanding that the commission had been advised by the county attorney a number of months earlier in the Charter process, about the likelihood that amendments 3 and 10 conflicted with the WA State constitution.

charter alternatives 3 and 4The final revised language in amendments 3 and 10 (now called propositions 2 and 3) which requires a unanimous 7-0 vote of the County council that the Charter commission passed during their July 6 special meeting, is also something that may not be legal.charter prop 2charter prop 3Read Sandy’s post on her Facebook page here.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s