May 3, 2017 Sandy Robson
Copied and pasted below, and shown in attached screenshot photos, are my recent email communications with County Planning and Development Services Assistant Director Mark Personius, about the Resolution (2017-019) that County Council approved on April 18, 2017, requesting the state legislature to amend the Growth Management Act, relating to the Washington Supreme Court decision on the Hirst et al. case. My initial curiosity regarding the origin of the resolution was borne out of my having listened to part of the audio recording of the April 18, Council Natural Resources Committee meeting, during which Council members seemed to be unaware of who proposed the resolution.
My concern was, that if the resolution did not originate from the Council members, then possibly certain state legislators might have been driving the creation of such a resolution which, if passed, could potentially be used to lobby their fellow legislators to create and enact legislation relating to the Hirst decision, and possibly other water-related issues. I had/have one particular local state senator in mind when I became aware of the fact that Council members seemed to be unaware of the origin of the resolution before them at their April 18th committee meeting.
From: Sandra Robson
Date: May 2, 2017 at 7:49:50 PM PDT
To: Mark Personius <MPersoni@co.whatcom.wa.us>
Cc: Council <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Barry Buchanan <BBuchana@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Carl Weimer <email@example.com>, Todd Donovan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
, Satpal Sidhu <SSidhu@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Ken Mann <email@example.com>, Rud Browne <RBrowne@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Barbara Brenner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tyler Schroeder <email@example.com>, Jack Louws <JLouws@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Sam Ryan <JRyan@co.whatcom.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Regarding the resolution requesting the state legislature to amend the GMA (relating to the Hirst decision)
Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed response in which you specifically addressed my question.
Respectfully, I just want to point out a few things I feel are important in terms of your continued characterization of the basis for creating the resolution, in saying it was a response to the “Council’s concerns about being more transparent with the public about actions the County had taken or supported regarding the Hirst decision and water resource planning initiatives.”
You gave that same reasoning to Council at the April 18th Natural Resources Committee meeting when you were asked by more than one council member about who it was that had proposed the resolution (as they were unaware). And, you gave the same reasoning to me in your April 27th email response to my original question about the origin of the resolution.
In reading the resolution, it’s pretty clear that
it was/is not simply about providing an accounting of the County’s actions related to the Hirst case issue and water resource planning in an effort to be more transparent to the public. The resolution was/is aimed at requesting the state legislature to amend the GMA.
While the “Whereas” sections in the resolution may provide an accounting of the history of the Hirst et al. issue, water resource planning initiatives, and County actions, which does provide more transparency, the “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved” and “Be It Further Resolved” sections which direct the specific action/s of the resolution, are clearly making a specific request of the state legislature to create and pass a legislative amendment or amendments to the GMA.
You said that you (PDS), Karen Frakes (Prosecutor’s office), and Tyler Schroeder (Executive’s office) jointly, made the decision to have PDS draft the resolution. According to the audio recording of the April 18th Natural Resources Committee meeting, it seemed as though you three had not informed the Council members that you three had made that decision to have PDS create and draft the resolution.
Also, on the Agenda Bill (AB2017-129) for the resolution, under the “Clearances” section, across from “Originator,” the word “Council” is typed there, yet Council members had not been the “Originator.” You, Karen, and Tyler were the “Originator.”
I asked each one of the Council members in emails I sent them about a week ago, if they had requested this recent resolution be drafted by PDS, and none of them said they had requested it.
And, when queried by Council members at the April 18th Natural Resources Committee meeting, about the origin of the resolution (who proposed it/where it came from), you were not transparent about who had proposed that resolution in terms of where it came from, which apparently was you, Karen, and Tyler.
I called the County Executive Office on April 19th, and spoke to Suzanne Mildner, explaining to her that from listening to the Council committee meeting audio, it sounded like the Council members themselves did not know where the resolution originated from. I asked her if she could help me find out where the resolution originated from. She said she would inquire and get back to me. Suzanne called me later that same day and told me that the resolution came from Council, that “they [Council] wanted the resolution.” She said they asked for assistance in language for it.
So, in creating a resolution that you say was about bringing more transparency to the actions of the Council relating to the Hirst decision issue and water resource planning initiatives, you/PDS, the Prosecutor’s office, and the Executive’s office are not then transparent with the Council and the public when queried about the origin of that resolution.
What was the reason for that lack of transparency on the Agenda Bill itself, when you were asked a direct question by Council about the resolution at the Natural Resources Committee meeting, when Suzanne in the Executive’s office was asked a direct question by me about the resolution, and when you were asked a direct question about that by me, in my April 27th email?
That lack of clear and transparent communication is concerning to me, and I imagine it might also be concerning to the rest of the public, and to the Council.
Again, Mark, I do appreciate that you answered my questions about the resolution promptly.
Thank you very much.