That Barbara's sure a populist, eh! Quit interfering with "the process" Weimer. Don't you get it? You think the council represents the county? Ha ha. The lawyers are in charge ... and I don't mean Frakes!
What is quite clear with Crawford's immediate response is that he knew the details of options, which apparently included filing a challenge to Superior Court which may have been a 10 day limit. Crawford, undoubtedly, had extensive conversations with his other legal advisors in the private sector. It is time for a court order to get Crawford's private emails to find out how much he is communicating county business off the record.
And as for Barbara's response, I am very thankful that this type of conversation is in the public, not in private. Thanks for asking these questions publicly, Carl!
Now can you enter a motion to have Frakes "retired" from her high paid position?
That is funny that Frakes and Brenner both wanted this crucial detail covered up and discussed "in private". Excuse me but, you all work for the tax payer. If you all do not like it, quit.
When the staff takes over on key policy decisions that can cost taxpayers millions of dollars, there is something seriously broken.
Either the County Council should pack it up and go home or they should fire their out of control attorney.
I think Frakes meant that her client is the county, which gives her an authority to act that is beyond the scope of what the council orders. It is akin to AG Rob McKenna deciding for himself that he would file a suit against federal health care because he represents not just the governor and legisature, but the wider interests of the state.
All of that said, it's pretty clear the filing of the motion to rescind was part of a strategy put together as early as October, when the council first put their emergency ordinance in place, the ordinance that is used as the central argument in the motion to rescind the state's order.
And all of that said, I do think Karen Frakes gives the council TERRIBLE legal advice. She is deferential to their whims when she really ought to be telling them at this point how to get out of the doghouse. It's clear the days of defiance are OVER and Frakes needs to tell them so.
Anon 777, as I mentioned, it seems pretty clear--since it is a central pillar of the county's motion to rescind the order--that the county's strategy was coming into focus no later than when the council adopted its superfluous and ineffectual emergency ban on subdivisions in October. This set up the argument where the county could declare they were taking care of things, which they've now made.
Also, I don't think there is anything especially vigorous about filing a motion to rescind a hearings board order in the absence of explicit orders to do so. It seems like a pretty cut-&-dried, braindead legal response, like appealing a conviction in criminal court.
The problem is, given the legal history, it is highly unlikely to work and then the county will be right back where it is today, with no work having been done to actually get into compliance.
If the state blinks and lifts the order, the ban will end in six months. Then, stampede. The council will do all it can to hold open the doors.
Anon 36, I'm not sure it is as "clear" as you say. If the motion to rescind came into focus in October when Council adopted its ban, why go through all the gyrations of calling an emergency meeting of Council, when the response was such a legal no-brainer?
If Frakes knew she was going to file the motion and did not need Council to approve it, why make a big deal about the emergency meeting? What was the emergency and what was done about it?
You can't have it both ways. It's either an emergency or it's a routine matter. Not both.
Does Karen understand that she is the attorney in the attorney/client relationship, and that her role is to give legal counsel, not to supersede the authority of elected County Officials?
Nor does Karen have the right to unilaterally decide what will or will not be discussed in executive session. Privacy exemptions and privileges are held by the client, and the client has the right to waive its privilege, even if it does so against counsel's advice. Carl had every right to question Karen, openly and publicly.
Karen, is, however, an employee of the Prosecutor's Office and McEachran needs to be held accountable for the actions of his employees.
We the People are footing the bill. We should have the right to know why. What is the advantage of filing the motion? How does it benefit the people of Whatcom County? Why didn't Ms. Frakes explain that?
The nature of the emergency is something that is clear and has not been made clear. The council has violated county code by not making it clear.
The point I was making about the motion was that a motion like that would likely be advanced by an attorney, suggested as a course of action, NO MATTER WHAT (else) the council decided to do, whether to fight the order or to comply with the order or whatever. I think it's on the scale of asking for a continuance or housekeeping motions. I don't think the filing of the motion in itself indicates some Master Plan at work.
Frakes is not daring. She is the opposite of daring. So I don't dispute the overall thesis that forces are at work that have not been made clear.
My guess is the council was told back in Sept or Oct that they had to pretend to do SOMETHING about subdivisions or get their @$$e$ kicked by the state. Hence their ineffectual moratorium.
And I agree, totally, with Wendy that Dave McEachran needs a size 15 shoe shoved up his rear end. He's real good at cracking the heads of penny ante thieves. Electeds ripping off taxpayers for millions, violating the directives of the WSSC? He's AWOL.
What about this? http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/politics/bellingham-council-to-hold-executive-session-on-squalicum-ridge-road-appeal/#comments
That Barbara's sure a populist, eh! Quit interfering with "the process" Weimer. Don't you get it? You think the council represents the county? Ha ha. The lawyers are in charge ... and I don't mean Frakes!
ReplyDeleteWhat is quite clear with Crawford's immediate response is that he knew the details of options, which apparently included filing a challenge to Superior Court which may have been a 10 day limit. Crawford, undoubtedly, had extensive conversations with his other legal advisors in the private sector. It is time for a court order to get Crawford's private emails to find out how much he is communicating county business off the record.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for Barbara's response, I am very thankful that this type of conversation is in the public, not in private. Thanks for asking these questions publicly, Carl!
ReplyDeleteGood work Carl!
ReplyDeleteNow can you enter a motion to have Frakes "retired" from her high paid position?
That is funny that Frakes and Brenner both wanted this crucial detail covered up and discussed "in private". Excuse me but, you all work for the tax payer. If you all do not like it, quit.
When the staff takes over on key policy decisions that can cost taxpayers millions of dollars, there is something seriously broken.
Either the County Council should pack it up and go home or they should fire their out of control attorney.
Does anyone really believe Frakes acted on her own authority?
ReplyDeleteI think Frakes meant that her client is the county, which gives her an authority to act that is beyond the scope of what the council orders. It is akin to AG Rob McKenna deciding for himself that he would file a suit against federal health care because he represents not just the governor and legisature, but the wider interests of the state.
ReplyDeleteAll of that said, it's pretty clear the filing of the motion to rescind was part of a strategy put together as early as October, when the council first put their emergency ordinance in place, the ordinance that is used as the central argument in the motion to rescind the state's order.
And all of that said, I do think Karen Frakes gives the council TERRIBLE legal advice. She is deferential to their whims when she really ought to be telling them at this point how to get out of the doghouse. It's clear the days of defiance are OVER and Frakes needs to tell them so.
Oh... and Barbara Brenner is an abusive and thoughtless idiot. Will anyone run against her?
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify. Karen Frakes jumps when someone tells her to 'jump', not because SHE wants to jump.
ReplyDeleteSomeone ordered Frakes to file the motion; she did not come up with that plan on her own.
Nobody that close to retirement is willing to stick their neck out and make such arbitrary decisions without first covering their ass.
Anon 777, as I mentioned, it seems pretty clear--since it is a central pillar of the county's motion to rescind the order--that the county's strategy was coming into focus no later than when the council adopted its superfluous and ineffectual emergency ban on subdivisions in October. This set up the argument where the county could declare they were taking care of things, which they've now made.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think there is anything especially vigorous about filing a motion to rescind a hearings board order in the absence of explicit orders to do so. It seems like a pretty cut-&-dried, braindead legal response, like appealing a conviction in criminal court.
The problem is, given the legal history, it is highly unlikely to work and then the county will be right back where it is today, with no work having been done to actually get into compliance.
If the state blinks and lifts the order, the ban will end in six months. Then, stampede. The council will do all it can to hold open the doors.
Anon 36, I'm not sure it is as "clear" as you say. If the motion to rescind came into focus in October when Council adopted its ban, why go through all the gyrations of calling an emergency meeting of Council, when the response was such a legal no-brainer?
ReplyDeleteIf Frakes knew she was going to file the motion and did not need Council to approve it, why make a big deal about the emergency meeting? What was the emergency and what was done about it?
You can't have it both ways. It's either an emergency or it's a routine matter. Not both.
Does Karen understand that she is the attorney in the attorney/client relationship, and that her role is to give legal counsel, not to supersede the authority of elected County Officials?
ReplyDeleteNor does Karen have the right to unilaterally decide what will or will not be discussed in executive session. Privacy exemptions and privileges are held by the client, and the client has the right to waive its privilege, even if it does so against counsel's advice. Carl had every right to question Karen, openly and publicly.
Karen, is, however, an employee of the Prosecutor's Office and McEachran needs to be held accountable for the actions of his employees.
We the People are footing the bill. We should have the right to know why. What is the advantage of filing the motion? How does it benefit the people of Whatcom County? Why didn't Ms. Frakes explain that?
ReplyDeleteThe nature of the emergency is something that is clear and has not been made clear. The council has violated county code by not making it clear.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was making about the motion was that a motion like that would likely be advanced by an attorney, suggested as a course of action, NO MATTER WHAT (else) the council decided to do, whether to fight the order or to comply with the order or whatever. I think it's on the scale of asking for a continuance or housekeeping motions. I don't think the filing of the motion in itself indicates some Master Plan at work.
Frakes is not daring. She is the opposite of daring. So I don't dispute the overall thesis that forces are at work that have not been made clear.
My guess is the council was told back in Sept or Oct that they had to pretend to do SOMETHING about subdivisions or get their @$$e$ kicked by the state. Hence their ineffectual moratorium.
And I agree, totally, with Wendy that Dave McEachran needs a size 15 shoe shoved up his rear end. He's real good at cracking the heads of penny ante thieves. Electeds ripping off taxpayers for millions, violating the directives of the WSSC? He's AWOL.
Oops. I meant "is **not** clear and has not been made clear."
ReplyDeleteWhat about this?
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/politics/bellingham-council-to-hold-executive-session-on-squalicum-ridge-road-appeal/#comments
Hi Jack Petree!
ReplyDelete