Category: Thurston County Democrats (Page 3 of 10)

We did all of this so far (hat tip, 1889 Washington Constitutional Convention):

That the person appointed to fill the vacancy must be from the same legislative district, county, or county commissioner or council district and the same political party as the legislator or partisan county elective officer whose office has been vacated, and shall be one of three persons who shall be nominated by the county central committee of that party,

Now, we’re in for this (apparently):

and in case a majority of the members of the county legislative authority do not agree upon the appointment within sixty days after the vacancy occurs, the governor shall within thirty days thereafter, and from the list of nominees provided for herein, appoint a person who shall be from the same legislative district, county, or county commissioner or council district and of the same political party as the legislator or partisan county elective officer whose office has been vacated,

So, the governor has to choose from the list the PCOs prepared two nights ago and she has 90 days from the beginning of January.

Now, I’m thinking that its raining outside, there’s going to be state emergencies declared, legislative sessions starts next week and the state budget is not in good shape, to say the least.

I mean, can’t the governor spare a few minutes to make a decision for us?

I think Ken hits the nail on the head:

I find it hard to believe that just 24 hours after getting the names from Jim Cooper, that the commissioners are at an impasse. This whole thing looks preordained to me; arguably an abdication of responsibility, given the lack of time given to reflect on the vote by the PCOs. Part of politics is being able to compromise, but it looks like minds were made up before the PCOs voted.

I would never argue that just because the PCOs are PCOs they would obviously make the right decision. I happen to think otherwise, but in this case I think they might the best choice. Not going through the process of interviewing the three candidates, but just immediately throwing up hands just seems really weird.

This also reminds me of the last time a local government gave up the ghose on choosing some replacements. The Olympia School Board at least put up a huge fight trying to pick a name, but they eventually kicked it up to a higher power as well. Jim Anderson did some great blogging on that process here. This is a particularly good post.

Maybe commissioners Romero and Wolfe don’t have the fight in them, but it would have been nice to at least see them try.

The PCOs voted tonight and the ranked list we’re sending to the county commissioners is:

1. Karen Valenzuela (Tumwater city council member) 164 points
2. Susan Bogni (current commissioner’s assistant, who endorsed her) 109 points
3. Walt Jorgenson (former Tumwater city council member) 87 points.

The PCOs were allowed to rank three of the applicants, with six points to divide among their first second or third choices.

Don’t worry Mark, I respect your opinion, despite your non-PCO status:

I would not vote for Susan Bogni. At the forum on Saturday, she struck me as one who felt she was due the appointment by virtue of employment for the current commissioner. The only other political adroitness she seemed to possess was the ability to say Barack Obama’s name, and if I remember correctly, she said she wanted to implement his vision in our corner of the worthld.

When did central planning become the mantra of our political age? She may be the most qualified candidate (though I didn’t take that from the forum), but she fails to grasp a very simple concept in a representative democracy, that the country doesn’t belong to its leaders, be they Barack Obama or Susan Bogni. I hate the concept of benevolent overlords, and I hate it when politicians (even more so, aspiring politicians) embrace it. Obama’s tagline certainly did not aspire to such lunacy look to the right of Joe Biden and read what it says.

From Jackie Barrett Sharar (via email) supporting Susan Bogni for the ye ol’open county commission seat:

Susan has never ever come across the table at colleagues or attempt to put them in choke holds nor does she have a short fuse and doesn’t engage in demagoguery. We’ve disagreed but I have never ever found Susan to be disagreeable. She is always respectful and always kind. As Obama says we need leaders that can disagree without being disagreeable. We need unity so we can all move on with our progressive agenda.

Who put someone in a chokehold? If one of Susan’s qualifications is that she’s never physically assaulted someone, then I guess I feel… safe?

Operation full court Bogni is in full effect. In addition to the above email (which was much longer), my wife took a phone call for me at home from “Nancy” reminding me about tonight’s meeting and hoping that Susan has my vote.

Well, only if I can be 100 perent sure she’s never kicked a co-worker in the shins, ok?

Ken Camp arranged an online forum this afternoon intended to include several of the applicants for the open county commission seat and some PCOs. Not a bad discussion. I’ve sort of been waiting for this.

Answering this via email (by the way, I work with Jeff):

1. Thurston County is badly in need of county government reorganization. The question quickly becomes “what is the best way to accomplish this outcome”? While I would love to see a new charter put before the county voters, the current constitutionally provided option has proven unwieldy. The election of freeholders as a precursor to the development of a charter proposal has resulted in a kitchen sink approach to the process with numerous agendas, the inability for consensus, and a patchwork proposal that gives everyone a little to like and a lot to dislike. The result the last time around was a voter rejection by a 2 to 1 margin.

The CTED proposals to the legislature in a paper called, “County Financial Health and Governance Alternatives”, raised the idea of an appointed freeholder process to develop a charter proposal. I think the sideboards and accountability of such an approach would generate a charter with a much better chance of voter approval. This would require at a minimum legislative action and possibly a constitutional amendment by the voters. I think I would prefer to pursue this type of option before trying the elected freeholder process again. So, yes I would like to engage the home rule process, but no, I would not vote initially to pursue the current option before trying to develop some alternatives. This rates as highly important to me. I believe it is critical to reorganize county government.

2. The County website is indicative of the diffuse nature of elected authority in Thurston County which has resulted in a lack of accountability. Yes it is bad and should be changed. The first phase would be the fundamental overhaul of how information is provided to citizens and options, including the website, for interaction on issues of the day. However, at some point the website can only reflect the structure of the government. If county government remains decentralized and unaccountable it would be hard for a website to reflect a broader understanding of how and where to interact. The average citizen should not have to be a student of governmental design and structure in order to figure out how to address their issue of concern.

Also, I think blogging is a useful medium to help demystify the quirks of county policy and decision making. It would be worth exploring. I wouldn’t expect that I personally would adopt the standards of some bloggers with the expectation of daily or even hourly entries.

These answers point out something great about Jeff, he’s one of the most studied people I know in general and probably of the applicants as well. His observations regarding the first question are well taken. It doesn’t serve anyone to have an ill designed charter on the other end of a home rule process.

That said, I don’t agree with his conclusions I don’t think an appointment process for free holders in necessarily going to solve the issue of the “laundry list” charter. You’ll just have a laundry list charter written by appointed freeholders instead of elected ones.

Its better to have a thorough election process for freeholders and lean heavily on their education once they start work. The opposite of Jeff’s suggestion, a citizen jury process, would also be a better alternative in my mind. In the end, I think an appointment process would build-in biases about the role of government from those already inside the government.

Jeff’s observation that the state of the website reflects the state of the county government is very insightful as well.

Jeff’s a smart guy, if he doesn’t get the appointment, it would be interesting to see him run.

Second of four applicants for the open commissioner position writes me back:

In mid-December, Jim Cooper sent all us candidates a list of 10 questions, the responses to which I believe he’ll post in a few days, as soon as he’s heard from all of us. Here’s question #10 and my response to it –it tells you how I feel about your first question below:

1. 10. Other than attending necessary Board and committee meetings, what would you do during your first 30 days on the job?

I’d work hard to balance external work –mostly meeting with constituents and listening to their concerns and issues, and meeting with other local government electeds —with internal work –mostly meeting with department heads, fellow County electeds, reviewing the recently adopted budget, etc. I’d like to think that mixed in with all of this, I’d be developing ideas in the back of my mind about where improvements might be implemented and starting conversations with my fellow County Commissioners about these. The most important conversation that I believe needs to be started early in 2009 is the question of home rule: restructuring County government into the more flexible County Council model instead of the current County Commission model. We’re no longer the rural county we once were, and we need a more modern form of self-governance. It’s a community conversation I look forward to with great enthusiasm.

With respect to the County’s web site, I agree it could and should be improved, which shouldn’t be a big deal, but would definitely be a priority for me. Thanks for the compliment on our City of Tumwater web site, though I think it, too, suffers from lack of interactivity capability. I think you have it absolutely right: the County’s site is ANTIQUATED! It also seems that its updating is pretty sporadic, almost like it’s completely forgotten about for months.

I’ve certainly begun to appreciate the value of blogging since becoming involved in this Commissioner appointment process. You and Ken have both done a great service to us all with your sites –THANK you! I recently read that one of the federal agency directors has been blogging about agency issues and controversies for two years or so now, which I thought was intriguing. The great thing about blogging is precisely its interactivity and accessibility, so I like the idea a lot. It would really open things up!

I especially like the part when she doesn’t call me stupid for not remembering one of her answers in the application material I already read.

Its also nice to be complimented for blogging. Thanks Karen.

Other than that, her answers speak for themselves. Unless she comes out as a closet Yankees fan, she’ll end up on my list.

I emailed a couple of questions to four applicants for the open county commission seat I’m considering right now (Russ Lehman, Karen Valenzula, Jeff Dickison and Walt Jorgenson).

They were about the possibility of home rule and how they feel about the county’s frightfully bad website and about blogging as an elected (or appointed in this case) official.

Russ Lehman got back to me pretty quick:

1) Yes, the home rule process, as I understand it, can yield some important results – not the least of which is an important discussion on issues facing this county in the 21st century. I do believe that serious discussion, at least, ought to occur about a BOCC with “reduced” powers and an administration with “increased” powers – better to enable the citizen’s work to be done efficiently and effectively. The fear of a wide open, no holds barred home rule process should not limit our desire and willingness to have the people of this county talk about, and possibility make the appropriate changes on, the critical issues facing us.

2) The website is not currently the tool/mechanism for nurturing Democracy and engaging and informing our citizens that it must be. Of course I would have that be a priority (a relatively small and simple task in the grand scheme of things) with an individual(s) tasked with bringing the website up to date and user friendly ASAP.

As regards blogging, I have mixed feelings about it. To the extent that it is a technologically current way to correspond with constituents, than great. To the extent that becomes a way around the OPMA by in any way “doing business” outside the public domain than I am not in favor of it.

His response on blogging, especially citing the Open Public Meetings Act is interesting, if not troubling. Some response from other elected officials on why they haven’t pursued blogging includes fear of violating the OPMA. In my short research, its the second most cited response to “what, don’t you think I’m busy enough?”

I’m going to have to start thinking harder and longer about the OMPA and blogging.