With all the April showers we saw last month, we ought to really be looking at some May flowers for a bit. 

They're a sure bet for a Mother's Day gift as well - fat free and always the right size.  Of course, if you're the mother you don't need me to tell you that.

I wish you the best of the special day and on behalf of my mother, who loves lighthouses, I give you this.

Back in January of this year, I began looking into a way we could put the Conservation Futures out on a ballot.  This is truly a non-essential program which requires a good deal of staff time and "takes" from the taxpayers in more ways than one.  It does provide benefits, but the voters have never had a chance to weigh in on it.

Looking into this, I found out that the legislature does not always give local governments the right to ask for voter consent.  What can be done, however, is a Citizen Advisory ballot. 

"What a fabulous idea!"  I thought. Let's require an advisory ballot before imposing any new fees (like the "Clean Water" utility) or assessments.  Piggy-backing the measures with other elections would greatly reduce the cost, (as is somewhat obvious, but was also explained to all three of us commissioners in January by an employee of the county who has served for 30-something years).

After finding several examples from other local municipalities, I put together a proposed new county ordinance (click here to view).  I painted it with a broad stroke to have some room for negotiations.

Certainly I knew there would be great resistance from Commissioner Homola because she is always lobbying for more taxing authority.  Seeking voter approval is the opposite of her desires.  However, I thought Commissioner Price-Johnson might take political advantage of the idea.

Instead of even engaging in an actual conversation about the idea, they brought in two more county workers and attempted to give the illusion that it would be an enormous "impact" on the county and that I had lied in my statement that "Prop. 1 didn't cost anything at all."

I experienced personal attack after personal attack and they apparently didn't expect me to take the Robert's Rules of Order Personal Privilege to defend myself.  Commissioner Price-Johnson projected the situation out to absurdity and ridiculed me for even bringing the idea.

In my original statement at the Monday meeting, I mentioned that I had spoken with both the auditor and the budget director.  My being a firm believer in Milton Friedman's saying, "there's no such thing as a free lunch," certainly then there are no "free" elections.  In fact, the auditor and I had that very conversation just a day or two earlier.  So I asked for the cost information on Prop. 1. 

The follow-up e-mail showed there was no billing for Prop. 1, ( click here to see).  Had there been a billing, it would have been between $2,000 - $7,000.  Wow!  That's an atrocious cost to pay for voter consent.

I have had many supportive conversations with people on the issue of the citizens' advisory idea.  Many have commented that they were not willing to write a letter because they didn't want to get harassed.  This tells me that the public input process does not work, as the South Whidbey commissioner says it does.

The second proposal I had prepared, a resolution to put the Conservation Futures fund on the ballot, met with the same resounding defeat.  (Click here to view the Resolution)

20 years ago, when The Futures fund was created, it was just that - 20 years ago - in much different times.  During the course of those 20 years, the county has purchased over $9 million dollars worth of land and conservation easements.  Much of this has created ongoing financial burdens for maintenance and insurance.

We are currently funding that maintenance, our Parks department, through the use of a Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) reserve.  This is only a short-term opportunity because the legislature has given a small window for that allowable fund use, and the fund is depleting rapidly. 

So how will we fund our public lands after that?  Well, by then the recession will be over and we can go right back to business as usual, right?  Our current plan is unsustainable and yet we want to keep on purchasing?!  That is not what I call leadership or representation. 

Every year we call for bids on publishing our legal notices in the newspaper.  State law requires us to take the low bidder unless there is a significant difference in circulation.  Circulation, it says, is the prominent criteria.

So it made little sense to me when we voted for the Whidbey Examiner, with a circulation of 1800, over the Whidbey News Times which has a circulation of almost 8000, without including the on-line version.   

I'll admit, I went along to get along at first.  Then, after further consideration and lack of clarity on a late-breaking document, I rescinded my vote.  I then moved for the board's reconsideration.

My motion died for lack of a second, the Whidbey Examiner is our legal newspaper for yet another year, by a 2-1 vote.  Thus our legal notices of resolutions, ordinances or events, will reach 1800 homes as opposed to nearly 8,000....  It's no wonder our public participation process doesn't work!
 

 

As the chair of our Island Sub-region RTPO (Regional Transportation Policy Organization), I felt it appropriate to attend a Transportation luncheon hosted by the Washington Policy Center last week. 

Wendell Cox presented data on "Smart" Growth at the Hyatt Regency in Bellevue, WA.

Keeping up with their usual pace, it was a fascinating event.  I look forward to sharing some of the highlights with our board at the meeting later this month.

If you would like to view it for yourself, you can access the complete event by clicking on this link:      

 

Most people don't realize how much influence your county commissioner has at the national level.  (I know I didn't until I got into the job!)

Currently all three commissioners serve on a national legislative steering committee.  These committees make recommendations to Congress such as, for instance, the recommendation to build the Keystone pipeline. 

That resolution came up at the Environment, Energy and Land Use Committee in DC this year.  My counterpart who sits on that board voted against it.

There is also the significant influence of a letter coming from a county commissioner (even more so from a full board) in support or opposition to an issue.  My counterparts sent a letter to President Obama in support of his fuel efficiency standards on vehicles. (to view, click here)

I believe that just the act of approving the pipeline would likely cause fuel prices to drop substantially.  Forcing the fuel efficiency standards on the car manufacturers would only push vehicle prices higher. 

Supporting legislation that will increase the cost of fuel and vehicles will ultimately increase poverty.  It is shortsighted and reckless.  As the far left Progressive Policy Institute admits in its comment:  "In most cases, the shortest distance between a poor person and a job is along a line driven in a car."  (You can view the full quote by clicking here)

I recently sent messages to both of our senators on a couple of senate bills.  I asked for their support on SB 2245, the Preserve the Waters of the US Act; and SB 2122 the Defense of Environment and Property Act.

Click here to view the letter to Senator Cantwell
Click here to view the letter to Senator Murray