A little further down in this post I am going to include images, links, and text related to the Public Disclosure complaint I filed against Whatcom County Executive Satpal Sidhu on September 25, 2023, citing a potential violation of RCW 42.17A.555, for supporting or opposing a ballot proposition during a public meeting.
In the meantime, I want to state what question was asked during the public meeting in question (the September 18, 2023 Whatcom County Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF) / Law and Justice Council meeting); what parts of the Whatcom County Executive’s remarks at that meeting responded to it; and what parts of his remarks in no way addressed the question (and as such, were not necessary in his role as Whatcom County Executive that day), and caused the alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.555. I am doing so because Executive Sidhu’s response to the Public Disclosure Commission did not acknowledge these distinctions.
We need to be able to rely on our elected leaders to be sensitive to and responsible for observing ethical and legal boundaries, especially those of the kind that are in place to prevent discrimination and broken promises to the communities and individuals they represent.
The question from a fellow IPRTF member was:
“And I guess I have a tangential question I’m curious about. Is the County committed to implementing that Justice Plan regardless of the ballot measure? – because so much in that Justice Plan actually wasn’t designed to be dependent on the ballot measure revenue, so I’m just – it would be great for us to understand that.”
The portions of County Executive Sidhu’s response that addressed that question were:
“Let me say that, Heather, everybody else on this meeting, yes, we are very committed to go ahead with whatever is in our capacity if the ballot measure is not passed. “
and
“But Heather, we are – and everybody else – we are committed. This is what government is for, for the good of people and for good of our community. This is not a project. This is our obligation and duty to the public.”
The portion of Executive Sidhu’s response that didn’t address the question that was asked was:
“But I think we should not think in those terms. That’s negative thinking that if it doesn’t pass.
“I just answered this question when I go out in the forums and things, and I said I have not put my mind to if it doesn’t pass because we want to make it pass. This is the best thing we can do.”
Images of my 9/25/23 PDC complaint and County Executive Sidhu’s response letter to the PDC
“So, you know, once the ordinance for the ballot measure for the new correctional facility was approved by the Council. We basically have now shifted into a – it’s in a campaign mode. Therefore, the governmental entities have to abide by certain rules that have been established that you cannot use public funds or public employees to promote or go against a ballot initiative, or a candidate, or anything in an electoral process.
“So what we’re doing is just making sure that all the boards and commissions know that that’s not a discussion to have within your meetings as far as, you know, ‘go, go, jail’ or whatever. That’s just something that Legal is wanting us to stay away from. I’m not going to read it because it’s in your packet.
“There’s a statement that will just go into agendas that just kind of basically – kind of like our land acknowledgment – it just is a statement about what we need to stay away from and that’s really all this agenda item is about, kind of just an FYI that – both from the Council level and now all the boards and commissions. They have to make sure that they’re not promoting nor opposing the ballot measure in their conversations in their meetings. So just wanted to lay that out.
”Four days later [a subsequent email was sent to the PDC to note that it was 11 days and not 4 between the two meetings] , at around 00:02:10 in the Zoom meeting (https://youtu.be/lqOnji_h6g0?si=Igt- fOWWqb8vvwYL&t=129) of the Whatcom County Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force / Law and Justice Council on September 18, 2023 at which Whatcom County Executive Satpal Sidhu is shown in attendance in the meeting summary (https://www.whatcomcounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/78688/IPRTF- Meeting-Summary-for-9182023?bidId=), as well as during the Zoom video, Stephen Gockley, Co-chair for the IPRTF made the following statement:
“I also want to state at the outset, at the request of County legal staff, per RCW 42.17A.555, the use of public facilities, including this, to support or oppose candidates or ballot issues, is prohibited. Members of the public and the legislative body are not allowed to speak in support of, or in opposition to, a ballot measure or individual candidacy during any public – open public meeting. Please refrain from raising campaign issues when addressing the Task Force.
“And I guess I have a tangential question I’m curious about. Is the County committed to implementing that Justice Plan regardless of the ballot measure? – because so much in that Justice Plan actually wasn’t designed to be dependent on the ballot measure revenue, so I’m just – it would be great for us to understand that.
”Kayla Schott-Bresler (Special Initiatives Manager for Whatcom County Executive Office) asked: “Yeah, Tyler, Satpal, do you want to answer that?
”Whatcom County Executive Satpal Sidhu responded (as relevant to this complaint): “Let me say that, Heather, everybody else on this meeting, yes, we are very committed to go ahead with whatever is in our capacity if the ballot measure is not passed.
“But I think we should not think in those terms. That’s negative thinking that if it doesn’t pass.
“I just answered this question when I go out in the forums and things, and I said I have not put my mind to if it doesn’t pass because we want to make it pass. This is the best thing we can do.”
Incidentally, Executive Sidhu is listed as a permanent member of the Incarceration Prevention Task Force on their Membership page (https://www.whatcomcounty.us/4095/Members), even though the meeting summary for that date lists him as an “Additional Participant.”
What impact does the alleged violation(s) have on the public?
Without enforcement of RCW 42.17A.555 in this case, I am concerned that violations will continue, giving an unfair platform for government officials to advocate for a ballot measure during open public meetings without the ability for opponents to respond.
With ample notice of the content of RCW 42.17A.555 having been announced to meeting attendees during meetings where Whatcom County Executive Sidhu was present, including the meeting where I believe the violation of RCW 42.17A.555 occurred, he made remarks that seemed to indicate his clear advocacy for a November 2023 Whatcom County ballot measure for the collection of a local sales and use tax of two-tenths of one percent for the purpose of providing funds for costs associated with public health, safety, and justice facilities and services including a new jail, among other things.
Furthermore, during the open public meeting in question, government officials who were present did not point out the likely violation the County Executive made, which can create an appearance there there would be no consequence to any future violations by some of those in attendance.
Violations related to past ballot measure sales tax campaigns for new Whatcom County Jail facilities have been enforced by the PDC. So this seems to be an issue which is proving to require continued oversight and enforcement.
List of attached evidence or contact information where evidence may be found
Members of the Whatcom County Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force: Jill Nixon iprtaskforce@co.whatcom.wa.usWhatcom County Council Office 311 Grand Ave., Suite 105 Bellingham, WA 98225
IPRTF member and Whatcom County Council Chair Barry Buchanan:
bbuchanan@co.whatcom.wa.us
9/18/23 IPRTF meeting Attendee and Whatcom County Executive Special Initiatives Manager Kayla Schott-Bresler: kschottb@co.whatcom.wa.us
Certification (Complainant) I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that information provided with this complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Satpal Singh Sidhu County Executive WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE’S OFFICE 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98225 October 10, 2023
Public Disclosure Commission c/o Jennifer Hansen, Compliance Officer PO Box 40908 Olympia, WA 98504-0908 pdc@pdc.wa.gov
RE: Whatcom County Executive Satpal Sidhu Response to PDC Complaint No. 14291
Dear Ms. Hansen:
Please accept the following response to PDC Complaint Number 14291 emailed to me on October 4, 2023. The complaint was filed electronically with the PDC by Dena Jensen on September 25, 2023.
The complaint alleges that I violated RCW 42.17.555 by supporting a ballot proposition during a public meeting of our county’s Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF) Steering Committee. The ballot measure in question relates to the funding of a proposed justice facility and related programing. Specifically, Ms. Jensen asserts that I, acting as the Executive for Whatcom County and a member of the IPRTF, responded to a direct question from another task force member related this ballot measure during this meeting. Ms. Jensen alleges that by doing so I improperly promoted a ballot proposition using public facilities.
I do not dispute Ms. Jensen’s claim that I answered a question referencing the ballot proposition during a public meeting of the IPRTF. This question was posed by a fellow task force member during our meeting held our September 18, 2023. However, my response to this specific question during the meeting as cited in the complaint does not amount to a violation of RCW 42.17A.555. There are two alternative reasons the PDC should agree with this conclusion.
First, my answer to the question as quoted in the complaint was not made for the purposes of promoting the ballot proposition being discussed. While the response may be characterized as supportive in nature, it was made for purposes of addressing the questioner’s concerns about program funding if the ballot proposition does not pass. These concerns were directly related to the work of the IPRFT on that day and the question posed. With this in mind the PDC should consider the context and nature of my statements, including the business being conducted and my role that day as a member of the IPRTF at the time, and conclude the statements were not made for purposes of promoting the ballot proposition to the public.
Alternatively, should the PDC disagree and conclude that my statements on September 18, 2023, were made for purposes of promoting the ballot proposition, it should conclude that I answered the specific question in my role as the Whatcom County Executive and member of the IPRTF. In the transcript, as provided by the complainant, it is clear that my comments were immediately preceded by an inquiry related to the likelihood of the ballot measure’s passage and potential contingencies based on the outcome of the election. As an elected official my response to this specific inquiry reflected my position on the ballot proposition, which is allowable under RCW 42.17A.555. Therefore, the prohibitions of RCW 42.17A.555 would not apply to my statements.
In conclusion, I respectfully ask that the PDC find that I did not improperly promote a ballot proposition during the meeting of the IPRFT on September 18, 2023, as alleged in PDC Complaint No. 14291. Further, I request the matter be closed and no further action taken.
noisy waters northwest 
You must be logged in to post a comment.