Now, it's my turn to chime in...
Here is the original story.
Here is a summary of the issue:
Brett Bonner believes that there was a procedural error made when the City of Bellingham passed an ordinance that formed the Transportation Benefit District.
My ears perked up immediately upon hearing this.
For those of you who don't know, I viscerally dislike procedural errors. I have made a lot of noise about such errors here on Latte Republic. I sounded off here, and here, and here. And I'm not going to turn a blind eye to procedural errors just because they might be made by those with whom I happen to otherwise agree.
In this case, the accused maker of the procedural error is Seth Fleetwood.
My view on the matter of procedural error is fundamental. It comes straight from Robert's Rules of Order:
It is the right of every member who notices a breach of the rules to insist on their enforcement.
Procedures in majority-rule organizations protect the few from the many.
And proper enforcement of procedures is the only thing that really protects the one from the many.
In a democratic society, if the majority is going to make a decision against the wishes of the few, and especially against the wishes of the one, then the majority has an obligation to make that decision according to its own rules.
The procedural error itself is a bit tricky to describe...
On June 21, the Bellingham City Council held a public hearing on the ordinance.
On July 12, Mr Fleetwood moved to strike language from the preamble of the ordinance, the language was struck, and then the council passed the ordinance.
Mr Bonner seems to be claiming that Mr Fleetwood's amendment to the language of the preamble was a procedural error on the apparent grounds that this change to the language of preamble of the ordinance called for a second public hearing.
Hmm.
The reason I use the words "seems" and "apparent" is that Mr Bonner does a rather shabby job of describing the nature of the procedural error.
Here is the portion of his press release that seems to address the particulars:
“The problem is that the proper procedure was not followed,” said Whatcom Information Center spokesperson Brett Bonner. “The car tab issue was never talked about before the council formed the Transportation Benefit District. We believe many citizens may have been misled. It may not have been their intention, but the council’s actions look like bait and switch.”
As required, the Bellingham City Council held a public hearing on June 21, gathering input from residents about the formation of the TBD. When the public hearing was held, the enacting ordinance explicitly called for the District to be funded by a 0.2% sales and use tax as allowed under Washington state law, meaning that that the tax measure would have to be passed by voters.
However, when the City Council gave final approval to the measure July 12, council members took the tax language out of the ordinance, opening the door for car tab fees, along with transportation impact fees on commercial and industrial buildings. Under state law, the Council can impose such fees without a public vote.
The Whatcom Information Center believes that without a second public hearing many citizens will be disenfranchised. “If the public knew that car tabs were a possible option, more citizens might have expressed their opinions before the council made a decision. And we all know how important public input and proper process is to our community.”
The entire text of the press release is in the original story written by Sam Taylor. Find it here.
Mr Bonner is being somewhat clearer than mud here. But he isn't being as clear as he could be. And Sam Taylor did a fine job of following Mr. Bonner's train of thought, so read the original article for that.
As best I can understand, Mr Bonner believes that proper procedure requires a second public hearing in the event that the City Council makes a change to any language in an ordinance, including the preamble.
What seems to be relevant here is Washington State's Open Public Meetings Act. The act mandates that state and local governments make all decisions on the people's business where the public has a chance to see the decisions being made.
Okay, but that doesn't mean have a public hearing every time language in every ordinance is modified. It just doesn't.
The Open Public Meetings Act guarantees the public right of attendance. There is no right of participation extended to the public by the OPMA.
Unless Mr. Fleetwood, and the rest of the City Council (Mr. Fleetwood can't take any Council action alone), took this action in executive session, or at a meeting without proper public notice, there is no procedural error that I can find here.
If there had to be a hearing everytime a city council changed some language on an ordinance, it would be possible for an ordinance to be delayed indefinitely, as there are no limits on the number of changes that could be made to an ordinance from one meeting to the next. An ordinance could be "filibustered by hearing" under such a procedural requirement.
Beyond this practical concern, there is something that I find troubling about Mr. Bonner's approach to all of this.
The whole point of a public hearing is to afford the public an opportunity to influence the decisions made by their elected officials.
This influence on the elected officials would have to occur after the hearing.
Mr Fleetwood did what people say they want their elected officials to do. He listened to members of the public and allowed himself to be influenced by the concerns of the public, and responded to that influence.
After a hearing on an ordinance, he made a modification to the ordinance, which passed with a majority vote of the members of Council.
Citizens frequently complain that there are public hearings on ordinances and after the hearings, the elected officials don't make any changes at all.
Mr. Fleetwood made a change after a public hearing, based on concerns he heard from the public. I consider this to be in keeping with the spirit of the Open Public Meetings Act.
Mr. Fleetwood is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. For a politician, that is a day of the week that ends in a "Y".
But he didn't make a procedural error, and neither did the rest of the City Council.
Mr. Bonner's point is not well taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment