This horse ain't dead just yet.
Tim Ford, the ombudsman for the Attorney General's Office, questions the validity of the notice given to Carl Weimer for the January 4th, Committee of the Whole meeting.
In a response to Latte Republic's concerns, Mr. Ford writes...
...My first impression when reading your email is that the comments by Carl Weimer present a legal question as to whether the meeting was properly noticed. Special meetings are governed by RCW 42.30.080 and they require at least 24 hours notice prior to the meeting to each of the county council-members. This notice may be waived only in writing, or by members who are present, or in the case of an emergency. Any action taken at a meeting where there is inadequate notice “shall be null and void”. See RCW 42.30.060.
I am not making any legal findings or conclusions but merely recognizing a concern raised by Carl Weimer regarding the adequacy of the notice.
Second, I am not sure that a failure to reorganize is a neglect. The Whatcom code you reference only states that the reorganization shall be “scheduled” at the first meeting of the committee of the whole.
I agree with your and Carl’s point regarding policy concerns that could be discussed in public. Regardless of whether there is a legal basis for an executive session, the council may choose to discuss policy concerns in public where there is no possible adverse legal or financial consequence.
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Tim Ford
Open Government Ombudsman
Assistant Attorney General for Government Accountability
Attorney General of Washington
The County notified the media 24 hours before the CotW meeting, but did they notify Carl Weimer properly?
Mr Weimer was in Texas on January 4th, and was unable to attend the meeting. In fact, since there was a scheduling conflict with his "day job" with the Pipeline Safety Trust he was unable to participate in the CotW meeting by teleconference. Carl wasn't notified in time to re-arrange his schedule and allow for him to participate by phone.
Mr. Weimer didn't waive his right to notice in writing. In fact, his written response to the notice includes a request that the meeting be postponed until he could return to Whatcom County.
Ruh-roh.
It is my understanding that the Council was reasonably aware of Carl's "day job" and that he was in Texas performing work for the Pipeline Safety Trust.
An e-mail sent to him at 12:14 p.m. (according to Sam Taylor of the Herald) would have arrived at about 2:14 p.m. Central time. Right in the middle of the work day in that time zone. To his County Council address, I'm guessing.
Mr Weimer indicated that he first became aware of the e-mail after 4 p.m. Monday Central Time. Too late in the day to cancel any commitments he might have made to attend the CotW meeting by teleconference.
If he'd been in Whatcom County at the time, it would be reasonable that he would be able to read his e-mail in a truly timely manner, but considering the foreseeable circumstances of delivering an e-mail to him under the conditions as they were on Monday, he didn't really get adequate notice of the meeting.
If the Council had scheduled the meeting at 3 p.m. instead of 1 p.m. (Pacific Time), not only would Carl have had well over 24 hours notice, but it would have been 5 p.m. in Texas and he would have been much more likely to be able have participated in the meeting by teleconference.
What I can't understand is why the Council didn't honor Carl's request to postpone the meeting until Thursday, when he would be back in town.
I'm not letting go of the issue of municipal statutory law just yet, either.
The County Council ignored its own statutory law when it held a Committee of the Whole meeting and made no attempt to reorganize itself. I posted on this matter here.
Mr. Ford is unaware of the fact that the Council didn't schedule the reorganization either. They just jumped right into executive session. Saw it with my own two eyes.
As I see it, the only way this meeting was statutorily kosher would be if it were an emergency meeting.
But it wasn't an emergency.
In a bone-fide emergency, the Council could meet without giving notice at all.
But the problem with calling this Committee of the Whole meeting an emergency... well, there are a few problems...
No where in the agenda is the word "emergency" used. The first clue that something is not an emergency is failing to refer to it as an emergency.
I attended the public portion of the meeting on Tuesday, and there was no discussion of the meeting being an emergency. Particularly with Tony Larson showing up with trademark tardiness, which further undermined the notion of any imperative. (That's right, folks. Tony Larson was late to the first Council meeting of the year.)
Then there is the matter of waiting two weeks to hold the meeting.
See, the Determination of Invalidity came out on about December 22nd, right before Christmas.
Now, clearly this wouldn't have been an emergency that called for action during the Christmas holiday itself, but the week after Christmas is only a true holiday to Republican slackers in Washington, D.C.
The County Council could have held an emergency meeting anytime after Christmas Day, which is what you do in the event of an actual emergency.
What you don't do in an according-to-Hoyle emergency, is wait until after the new year and then call a meeting on the first Tuesday after the holidays are over.
There is being impatient and impulsive, and there is dealing with an emergency. And rarely the twain shall meet.
Of course, this is just one of a year+ long string of extraordinarily questionable (I'm being charitable) adherence to County and State laws. Last year I considered starting a database of such actions but didn't.
ReplyDeleteA documented list that shows a pattern of mal-something might make the case that the Council (as an entity) and/or its legal advisors lack a clear understanding of and show poor adherence to both the spirit and letter of county and state laws. One item doesn't cut it; but 5, a dozen, 2 dozen . . .
You make a good point it was senseless to schedule this meeting in anything other than a measured manner. It could have been scheduled as an addendum to their first official meeting, in a session before or after their organizational session. No emergency; in fact it is highly probable the council already had an inkling the GMHB would rule on their Rural Element before the end of the year and that it likely would not be a favorable ruling... therefore, no surprise, either.
ReplyDeleteNo emergency. No surprise. Why the panicked schedule?
Whatever matters are not _strictly_ confidential could be taken out of executive session into the public and "re-explained" to the public in a public forum. I think that's what Ford was getting at.
Anonymous, A database would be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me things started to go off the rails with the departure of Bob Kelly. Then you had the whole nomination fiasco with Ward Nelson vetoing replacement candidates while he himself was a candidate.
That meeting in April... at a CHURCH... where the council colluded with developer attorneys and even offered a procedural amendment that gagged any other commentary, including that of Futurewise, that belongs in the database, too.
And all the times a land-use matter should have been delivered back to the Planning Commission while that group meanwhile twiddled their thumbs and canceled their scheduled meetings for lack of anything to do... That belongs in your database, too.
Back to 're-explaining' - the meeting should have begun with a public discussion of what is going on and what the options are. The legal discussion and decision should have then occurred in executive session. But the public is now left completely out of the loop and Karen Frakes' weird statement about the people who are suing them being present (?!?) is left unexplained.
ReplyDeleteIs the county suing the state? Was the state there? Is Apexnerd suing everyone? What is going on?
The meeting began with a discussion of sorts. It's my understanding that Legal Counsel raised a concern that the meeting should not take place with people in the audience who are suing the county. But it's the GMHB that is suing the county, not Whatcom County citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe citizens who attended the meeting were asked to leave the room. A while later, they were asked to move further away from the room, just in case the walls were thin.
At the conclusion of the Committee of the Whole meeting, Mr. Crawford announced to the citizens that the "show was over, move along."
That's the way concerned citizens are treated by this council and council staff.
Somewhere along the line, the County seems to forget who's business it is that they are conducting. It's the people's business. Not there business.
It's time for a major house cleaning.
Anonymous-- Your description of what occurred seems HIGHLY irregular. I've never heard of such a thing.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying the public was _kicked out_ of council chambers (rather than council retiring to their offices) and then kicked further back out of the Rotunda?
This is astounding, given Swanson, et al, who really ARE suing the county are these council people's bestest, bestest ever pals ever.
It's like a biker gang took over the County Courthouse.
That's what I was told. And, I agree, it is highly irregular for a County Attorney to accuse citizens in the audience of "suing" the County.
ReplyDeleteWhat's happening in this community?
The Developer Tards have the majority on the Council.
ReplyDeleteMr. Kremen enables them with his stereophonic mustache that opposes nothing they do.
Their only game plan is steal as much money as possible from the tax payers to subsidize developer wet dreams. Privatize the profits, take the taxes from you at gun point, if you resist and do not wanna pay. Thanks Crawford, Brenner, et all
I think it's important to draw at least some distinction between developers and land flippers. Developers at least do produce things and employ people.
ReplyDeleteThe flippers--by far the largest, angriest and most vocal segment of those whom County Council panders to--are folks who bought worthless swampland 25 years ago with the idea it was the Golden Parachute, the Last Harvest, whatever. They NEED the gov't action of an upzone (a form of welfare) to create wealth for their dumbass, unwise "investments." Get the upzone, cut in some roads and ditches, flip for the profits.
Repeat. This is what you see happening up the Guide: Wanna-be real estate "tycoons," now screaming because planning policy has officially deemed their property as worthless as it always was.
Some of these dinks were stupid enough to buy the property _after_ the passage of GMA and the handwriting was on the wall. As is usually the case, they're also the angriest and most malevolent about their idiotic "investments."
American society is moving away from viewing the strip mall as the most desirous zenith of enlightened civilization. These flippers are ready with their burning torches and loaded muskets to make sure that doesn't happen.
The previous Anaonymous has a point about strip malls going out of style -- in forward-thinking communities. We're a little bit backwards here. Like 20 years or so. ("The state has no right to pass a Growth Management Act!" Er, that moving finger moved on in 1990.)
ReplyDeleteAnd about land-flippers. Really, the longer you hold onto your land, the LESS entitled you are to think that regulation will never change. But we're a little backwards on that, too.
The City of Bellingham feels insulated from all this living-in-the-past, but it's not. Our new state legislator, Vincent Buys, stated in the Lynden Tribune that wasteful state spending includes the small state grant for the Pickford (so much for economic development) and state funding for salmon restoration (so much for the long term health of the environment). It takes a village, and if the dominant village is Lynden, people in Bellingham might be surprised by what their apathy has wrought.