Jean Melious, who is a member of the Whatcom County Planning Commission posted the following comment: (Please note that Jean is posting comments as a private citizen, not as a planning commission member).
I attended the first hour and a half of Tuesday's issues, and have talked to the "no" votes (Carl Weimer and Ken Mann) about it a little. Questions about the procedural issues have been bothering me, so I just sent the following letter to Carl and Ken. I now see that you've already said pretty much the same thing. I hope that some answers will be forthcoming.
Dear Carl and Ken,
I've mentioned some of my concerns about the consideration of the septic tank ordinance to both of you. Because I left Tuesday's Council meeting around 9:00, and was not there for the final vote, it is not entirely clear to me what action the Council ultimately took. Would it be possible for the County -- with the assistance of the Prosecutor's Office, if necessarly -- to clarify the situation relating to the hearing and the final vote?
The County Code gives the Council the authority to pass (1) resolutions, which must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Council and are non-binding, (2) ordinances, which must be filed in writing and which cannot be adopted for at least 13 days after filing, and (3) emergency ordinances, which must be "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or support of the county government and its existing institutions," and which must clearly state "the specific emergency and the facts creating it." Whatcom County Code, sections 2.02.100, 2.02.110, and 2.02.135.
Which of these actions did the Council take on Tuesday with respect to septic tank inspection? The public hearing was held on an ordinance that was described in public notices and provided to the public in advance. I gather, however, that the Council did not act on this ordinance but passed something else.
All ordinances must be published in advance and must be available for inspection by the public after adoption.Section 2.02.120. If the Council took binding legislative action by ordinance on Tuesday, was the ordinance made available in advance, and is it now available to the public?
Whether the County passed a nonbinding resolution, a binding ordinance, or something else not contemplated by the Code, does the County Health Department have the legal authority to implement the measure? Wendy Harris submitted a letter to the Health Department asking for clarification of this issue, based on conflicting state law, and it would seem pertinent to the Council as well.
I understand that none of this may matter, from a practical perspective. The Health Department can simply decide to use its resources in areas other than septic tank inspection for the time being, whether or not the Council's directive is legal. I also understand that another hearing will be held on another ordinance, and that raising issues regarding Tuesday's hearing may not be popular with those who were perfectly happy with the result.
Nonetheless, I believe that the rule of law is important. I am sure that the Council wants to assure its constituents that it is operating in a predictable way using procedures that apply across the board, regardless of the issue at hand. Questions have been raised in various forums, and Bellingham Herald reporters are even being asked these questions. The burden to answer these questions, it would seem, should be on the County and its legal staff, not primarily on reporters.
If you think that the issue merits it, please feel free to share this message with other Council members.
Best regards, and with thanks for all you do,
Jean Melious
I attended the first hour and a half of Tuesday's issues, and have talked to the "no" votes (Carl Weimer and Ken Mann) about it a little. Questions about the procedural issues have been bothering me, so I just sent the following letter to Carl and Ken. I now see that you've already said pretty much the same thing. I hope that some answers will be forthcoming.
Dear Carl and Ken,
I've mentioned some of my concerns about the consideration of the septic tank ordinance to both of you. Because I left Tuesday's Council meeting around 9:00, and was not there for the final vote, it is not entirely clear to me what action the Council ultimately took. Would it be possible for the County -- with the assistance of the Prosecutor's Office, if necessarly -- to clarify the situation relating to the hearing and the final vote?
The County Code gives the Council the authority to pass (1) resolutions, which must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Council and are non-binding, (2) ordinances, which must be filed in writing and which cannot be adopted for at least 13 days after filing, and (3) emergency ordinances, which must be "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or support of the county government and its existing institutions," and which must clearly state "the specific emergency and the facts creating it." Whatcom County Code, sections 2.02.100, 2.02.110, and 2.02.135.
Which of these actions did the Council take on Tuesday with respect to septic tank inspection? The public hearing was held on an ordinance that was described in public notices and provided to the public in advance. I gather, however, that the Council did not act on this ordinance but passed something else.
All ordinances must be published in advance and must be available for inspection by the public after adoption.Section 2.02.120. If the Council took binding legislative action by ordinance on Tuesday, was the ordinance made available in advance, and is it now available to the public?
Whether the County passed a nonbinding resolution, a binding ordinance, or something else not contemplated by the Code, does the County Health Department have the legal authority to implement the measure? Wendy Harris submitted a letter to the Health Department asking for clarification of this issue, based on conflicting state law, and it would seem pertinent to the Council as well.
I understand that none of this may matter, from a practical perspective. The Health Department can simply decide to use its resources in areas other than septic tank inspection for the time being, whether or not the Council's directive is legal. I also understand that another hearing will be held on another ordinance, and that raising issues regarding Tuesday's hearing may not be popular with those who were perfectly happy with the result.
Nonetheless, I believe that the rule of law is important. I am sure that the Council wants to assure its constituents that it is operating in a predictable way using procedures that apply across the board, regardless of the issue at hand. Questions have been raised in various forums, and Bellingham Herald reporters are even being asked these questions. The burden to answer these questions, it would seem, should be on the County and its legal staff, not primarily on reporters.
If you think that the issue merits it, please feel free to share this message with other Council members.
Best regards, and with thanks for all you do,
Jean Melious
No comments:
Post a Comment