Weimer
Weimer, more liberal than some of his counterparts, is concerned that the conservative members of the County Council will vote against the funding, like some did on spending $50,000 to help store goods at the Bellingham Food Bank. Council members Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner and Ward Nelson voted against spending the money.
Said Weimer:
If our last meeting is any indication this program may be on the chopping block this week. At our last meeting Sam Crawford, joined by Ward Nelson and Kathy Kershner, tried to chop the funding for that outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars the Food Bank.
I spoke with Nelson briefly last week as to why he voted against it and he said he is concerned about how the food bank checks to ensure that those who use the service are actually in need of it, while also noting the budget issues of the county government right now where more money is being spent than is being taken in. That was a sentiment echoed by Crawford.
Said Crawford:
The thing I’m concerned about is we have to cut services by laying off employees but still fund some of these other things,” Crawford said. “I would prefer to cut the non-mandated programs, I call them elective programs, first, so that we can keep essential services like public health, law enforcement and that sort of thing.Crawford
Crawford noted the council and executive’s office have been grappling with how to fund Whatcom County Superior Court, too, which has a massive caseload that has bogged down the justice system to nearly a standstill, especially in terms of civil cases.
“We’re telling (court officials) the money is not there and yet we’re giving it to these various organizations,” Crawford said. “The organizations themselves are worthy, and I wouldn’t criticize any of these programs, but we have to make tough decisions right now and I’m going to be voting no on a lot of these things.”
I tried to speak with Kershner about this last week as part of another issue I was covering, but she hasn’t returned the last few phone calls I’ve made to her for stories.
Now there is an item on tomorrow’s agenda for the council to approve the spending for the Friendly Visitors program. The program is designed for volunteers to befriend a senior citizen who still lives at home so that they have someone to get to know and be around them. County Councilman Ken Mann, the other progressive council member, volunteers with the organization.
More from Weimer:
When money is tight in government it certainly makes sense to prioritize programs and make cuts before raising taxes. But good government doesn’t cut things that put people at risk or harms the most vulnerable. Programs like the Friendly Visitor Program and the Food Bank form the basic safety net for people in need, especially in these hard times. If cuts need to be made these certainly are not the types of places we should be looking to cut first. Hopefully this contract will fly through on Tuesday with little or no desire to dissect it, just like much larger contracts to buy road equipment or consultants often fly through.
Read Weimer’s full post, over here.
Mann
Snapp
Said Snapp:
Our Finance Director is saying that we are still in a decline on most of our major funding sources. I didn’t pick a great year to chair the City Council Finance Committee, I can tell you that.
Also a note: I don’t have a photo of Nelson, how odd is that? And for some reason I can’t get the system to show Kershner’s name under her photo. Things are just breaking left and right on this blog lately! My apologies.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:06 PM
We might start taking Crawford seriously about his concern to curb “elective” expenditures when he decides the time has come to roll back the pay raises of his “elected” pals, Kremen and McEachran.
Has anybody confirmed that our county executive has actually contributed the raise to charity? Why not just cut his pay, eliminate the huge retirement benefits, and Pete can rely on friendly visitors when the need arises.
The program might gain some support if these good old boys thought they might benefit.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Nobody that endures the humiliation - real or imagined - of lining up for a food handout is in any need of Crawford, etal, piling on requirements for that help.
The people that run the program know what real need is and Crawford should trust - like he’ll trust a homeowner with a leaky septic - to regulate their own program.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:18 PM
My thoughts exactly. Maybe Kremen could also cut his brain loose as well. He gets a boat load.
Also, this council is not of paupers, let them donate their wages.
I Also don’t want to read anything about Council retreats or stipends for council to attend anything. Pay as they go out of their own pockets on all council expenses.
I would rather see top down cuts to make up differences.
Also does Nelson think people line up in the rain for beans and day old donuts to go with their steak and lobster. How ridiculously callous.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Put up No Trespassing and Please Do Not Disturb The Sediment signs at Swift Creek and dump that $160,000 onto the food bank.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Kinda like that shell game Sonntag reported on?
And Steve Oliver knows best, more intellegent than an audit?
And then the old Superior Court Classics, from the clown’s the call judges?
Those Dockets, in Mt Vernon, Seattle and Olympia are filling up too, with this County’s actions!
February 8th, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Liberty Bell,
I have no idea what you’re saying,
but you’re one of the most entertaining conundrums on this entire board.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Liberty Bell - it wasn’t up to Steve Oliver, he doesn’t control the county’s budget. The administration, with approval from the County Council, diverted those individual interest income funds to the general fund based on legal advice from the prosecuting attorney’s office. Oliver was concerned about the issue and asked the council for direction in terms of what to do, since the state organization for county treasurers was concerned with the issue, too.
All Steve Oliver’s office does is invest the revenue in the accounts.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Those stories from the Friendly Visitors program are so touching, I can’t see how anyone could find it in their heart to cut their funding like this. Sam Crawford truly needs to revisit his humanity if he feels that this is wasteful spending.
Oh and Nelson? As someone who has gone through the humiliation of waiting in line at the food bank, let me tell you, you are wrong. Dead wrong. No one would go through that if they didn’t have to. I don’t know what sort of twisted friends you have but I think they were playing a prank on you.
Then again, you are playing a prank on us by voting on all these council issues when you aren’t even eligible to be sitting in that seat, so *shrug*.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:02 PM
Let’s hope, like the last time, it still passes despite the same old heartless three. These guys are already going to have socks full of coal lumps next Christmas and beyond.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Isn’t Friendly Visitors a charity program?
Why does it need funding?
Mr. Kirsch, et al,
Who do you want to lay off to continue the funding of these programs?
February 8th, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Mr. Kirsch, amen. Also, the court issue is one that is near and dear to my heart personally (only speaking for myself and myself alone), but the Council last November approved the court system the money, and it was vetoed by the County Executive. This approval would not have cut this above mentioned program. Sure, $20,000 would help a lot, but the court issue needs much more funding, so it seems odd to tie the two together. Oh, what does it matter, I don’t understand the logic anymore. I don’t see how elderly, lonely shut-ins starving are going to deal with our important court issues and the funding of our third branch of government, and I don’t much care for grandstanding by members of our Council tying them together. Funny, I never considered myself much of a liberal before, but…
February 8th, 2010 at 6:51 PM
I have an idea:
I’ll match the contribution of any poster here, up to $50, for either of these programs.
My offer requires the participation of all of the posters to date, including Kirsch, citizen, Shaun, Mary, and Riley Sweeney.
Does anyone have a comment?
Let’s see if we can recruit more posters!
February 8th, 2010 at 7:22 PM
Sam, if he agrees, can hold the pot.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:50 PM
I’ve decided to include councilman Weimer as a participant, with the usual conditions.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Okay, Davesix. Sounds good to me!
Let’s get involved, and do what we can! 
February 8th, 2010 at 7:57 PM
“Sam, if he agrees, can hold the pot.”
Best sentence to take out of context ever.
I think that Davesix hit upon a good idea. These are good organizations and times are very difficult. Raising money and awareness about the good work these people are doing is essential. I can’t tell you how many non-profits I have encountered that are doing vital work, but very few people outside of the field know that they exist. They don’t waste time on publicity, they focus everything they have on providing their service.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:10 PM
So Riley, You’re in?
February 8th, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Mary,
Thank you very much!
I’ll deliver a check to the herald tomorrow, if Sam agrees.
(I know it’s pain in the ass…)
February 8th, 2010 at 8:42 PM
I’m in. And I hope the matching offer will attract hundreds of posters.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Sorry, I’m too broke to pay rent right now. Apparently being a talentless political hack doesn’t pay what it should
February 8th, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Riley, if Sam gets caught holding he can always say that Dave and Greg and the others put him up to it. It won’t work, but he can say it. But we don’t want hundreds of posters in on this.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:02 AM
We are fortunate that Whatcom County is so blessed with a plenitude of wonderful, compassionate, and loving citizens who surely want our government to generously support such kindhearted programs as the Friendly Visitors and the Food Bank, especially now, while we are in the midst of the deepest recession in recent memory, and our friends and neighbors need these programs more than ever.
Who would deny a measly $20,000 (or even $50,000) to support in-home visitation of the elderly, many of whom are frail, lonely, and in-need of some greater connection to the larger community? Surely, helping volunteers visit the elderly in their homes is the least we can do and may be the one vital service that allows them to age-in-place, rather than having to spend their finals days in a nursing home.
The last time I dropped off a check to the food bank, I saw a homeless man scrounging a meal from the garbage bins in the alley, because, he said, he didn’t want to take food from those who were waiting in line out front, many of whom were families with small children. Who would vote to deny funding for the food bank, during such desperate times? Who would vote to withhold food from the mouths of innocent babes?
I strongly suspect that Politicians who vote against funding such services may be committing political suicide, as future opponents will undoubtedly rush to remind voters which candidates opposed programs supporting the sanctity of human life, upholding the dignity of the elderly, and guarding the needy against the want of hunger. Indeed, persons refusing to support such causes must have surely forgotten that the alleviation of human suffering must be valued infinitely above money or material possessions, for we are all one and the same in the eyes of God.
Certainly, all of the good, upstanding, and God-fearing Christians in our community will object to withholding this funding, for Jesus taught us that, on the Judgment Day, God will surely ask us what we did to help the poor and needy: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”
My checks are in the mail.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:02 AM
County Councilman Carl Weimer implied that Nelson, Kershner and Crawford consider the Food Bank as “outrageous waste.”
Riley Sweeney Communications Committee Chair of the Whatcom Democrats questions Crawfords humanity over Crawford feeling “that this is wasteful spending”
I don’t see any evidence that any of these people consider the programs wasteful.
The blog host was quick to defend Steve Oliver with a fact check, any chance that he will fact check Mr. Weimer or Mr. Sweeney over their claims or will these subtle partisan attacks go unquestioned?
From what I have read and heard Crawford, Kershner, and Nelson, are making these tough decisions with great thoughtfulness and compassion.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:36 AM
I’m in for $50. Confirm where to send the check
February 9th, 2010 at 7:36 AM
Having naturally occurring asbestos at Swift Creek may potentially harm somebody someday - or not.
Spending $160,000 on a study,
and only a study,
to determine the extent of that possibility is wise - if we had no other pressing Immediate concerns over real people needing aid and funding through Superior Court,
the Food Bank and other Right-Now charitable organizations.
Priorities are the name of the funding game and this council,
in their Rush to be Limbaugh,
has lost sight of the importance of stewardship over our money.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:24 AM
Paraphrasing with a little license for emphasis…..
Ward, I’m not sure all these people (lining up for macaroni and bread) are even eligible….did someone check to see if they’re really hungry?
Crawford, I’m more worried about someone getting laid off, we need to fund public health (except for sewer inspections) law enforcement (more speed traps and stops for not having functioning daytime running lights that aren’t required in the first place), checking on little old fogies is a non-mandated, though maybe essential perk…that I’m going to vote against…
Krashcourse kathy, I’m just gonna keep smiling and not returnin’ Sam’s calls..that’s my plan and I’m stickin’ to it.
” So how’s that hopey- changey thing workin’ out for ya….” Sarah of the Palin
February 9th, 2010 at 8:31 AM
Why doesn’t The Right Honorable Kershner return Sam’s calls?
That would place her actions and statements into the realm of discussion.
And we’re ruthless!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:05 AM
Wally, so good to hear from you again. Let me make this fact check really easy. You said,
Riley Sweeney Communications Committee Chair of the Whatcom Democrats questions Crawfords humanity over Crawford feeling “that this is wasteful spending”
But you will notice that I didn’t put Sam Crawford’s statement in quotes. You did. I never asserted that Crawford said that, from his various public statements, I’m pretty sure he believes it but I don’t think he said it about this. So, there is nothing to fact check.
I questioned his humanity because I feel that anyone who could vote against such a committed and essential service clearly does not have the empathy necessary to be a good representative or public servant. It is my opinion, so again, no fact checking.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:09 AM
What percentage of total funding does the 20,000 make up?. The way Weimer describes it if this funding was cut the whole program would collapse. I’m a big proponent and supporter of NGOs and the services they provide, however, I don’t agree with them receiving funding from government sources. I believe that donations should be voluntary and not forced through taxation.
If government is the way we are going to fund our charitable services maybe we should end the United Way campaigns (and other voluntary collections) and raise everyones taxes. More effective collection scheme and forces EVERYONE to pay.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:18 AM
So Hammer time, I’m assuming then you would like to see tax exempt status removed from the churches who fund some of the NGOs? Since tax breaks are a form of government subsidy, they don’t need tax breaks, they’ve got God on their side….?
February 9th, 2010 at 9:30 AM
Sorry, everyone, I’ll have to decline to take donations for Friendly Visitors. As much as that sounds like a nice thing, I must remain an impartial third-party observer.
It looks like you can get more information, however, to contact the Interfaith Coalition about the program over here: http://www.interfaith-coalition.org/blog/?page_id=14
February 9th, 2010 at 9:32 AM
Wally - you’re being ridiculous as usual. I fact checked something easily fact checked on a comment. And I think my blog post stands on its own here to explain the reasoning behind the votes of at least Councilman Crawford and Nelson. That is my fact check.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Okay, Sam, I understand that. Where do we send the checks if we send them directly? Dave Six, where should we send them?
February 9th, 2010 at 9:43 AM
I’ve got an update on this, though. I received an anonymous call from someone saying they’ll cover $50 for Riley in the interest of making Davesix stick to his offer.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Oh, do we send them directly to the Interfaith Coalition, or somewhere else?
February 9th, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Annnnd another update - we’re currently chatting here at the paper about perhaps accepting to collect these donations. So stay tuned. I’ll try to have something for you by the afternoon.
No guarantees still.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Wow! I have awesome friends!
February 9th, 2010 at 10:24 AM
Wally just posted an excoriation of Immanuel’s comment on retardation and how mistreating English speaks so poorly of a person’s character.
But what kind of character does it take to put quotes into a person’s mouth and then complain about what you’ve pretended they said?
February 9th, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Shaun,
I love the fact that charitable contributes are tax deductions and rely heavily on it. But I don’t view it the same way as Shaun. Instead of viewing it as the government making donations (by not collecting the taxes) I see it as the government allowing people to decide where they can focus their monies for good causes instead of taking money by force and distributing it as they see fit. I guess it all comes down to whose money is it being donated, the government’s or charitable individual’s?
Although Davesix did not include me in his challenge I’ll contribute as well. I love voluntary charitable giving when it helps out a good cause/program. Especially if I know my donation is filling a deficit left by previously forced contributions.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:44 AM
More coming even still on the donations. This is exciting, and another first for the Politics Blog. And it’s all because of you guys, not me!
February 9th, 2010 at 11:07 AM
I hope people realize that what goes around, comes around. The reason we help our neighbors is because it makes for a better community in which to live.
I was discussing the healthcare proposals before Congress with a conservative friend of mine, who said, “I work hard for my money, why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare?” which is a common conservative refrain.
I asked him to imagine that he lived with his family in a small village, where he had broken his leg and was unable to provide for his family. Would he want everyone else in the village to say, “We work hard for what we have, why should we help you?” I think the answer is obvious.
If the village does not help provide for the one with a broken leg, he may die or his children may become ill. On the other hand, if they all help care and provide for him, he will recover to become a contributing member of the village once again. Besides, who can stand around and watch their friends and neighbors starve or suffer?
If we do not care for the neighbor who is sick, maybe we’ll get sick also. Furthermore, we care for our neighbor during times of need, so our neighbor will return the favor in the event that we ourselves become needy: there, but for the grace of God, go I. This is nothing more than the golden rule, a version of which is taught by all major world religions: Do unto others as you would wish to have them do unto you. Of course, the converse is also widely held: Do not do to others as you would not have them do to you.”
Cross-cultural anthropology shows that the one universal among all human societies studied to date, about which we are certain, is food sharing. And, until the advent of Euro-American colonial expansion and global capitalism, it appears that economic cooperation was much more prevalent than competition.
Sharing, compassion, egalitarianism, and cooperation reminds me of Catholic Social Teaching, which is, perhaps, the most well developed moral code concerning government aid and social welfare programs. The Church teaches that it is essential for all governments to act with love toward widows and orphans, prisoners, persons with disabilities, the elderly and terminally ill, victims of injustice and oppression, and the sick and needy of every kind.
Thus, Catholic Social Teaching “rejects unrestricted laissez-faire policies and the notion that a free market automatically produces justice. The state has a positive moral role to play as no society will achieve a just and equitable distribution of resources with a totally free market. . . . Furthermore, we must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always keep the ‘preferential option for the poor’ at the forefront of our minds. The moral test of any society is ‘how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.’”
After all, what kind of society do we want our children to grow up and raise their families in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching
February 9th, 2010 at 11:22 AM
I’m in for $50
February 9th, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Todd2,
Does this imaginary small village rely on a system of universal healthcare or does it rely on its members taking care of each other?
As you questioned: Besides, who can stand around and watch their friends and neighbors starve or suffer?
Hopefully no one, that’s why I believe we are all charged with serving our fellow community members. What it comes down to, is should it require the force of law?
I believe those villages take care of each other because they know they depend on each other and don’t see their fellow villager in need and say, the village elders should take care of them! Similarly there are many in this community and throughout this country who give generously to help out others without being forced to do so.
Also nice use of quoting the Catholic text. Let me fill in the “. . .” you left out:
The state has a positive moral role to play as no society will achieve a just and equitable distribution of resources with a totally free market.All people have a right to participate in the economic, political, and cultural life of society and, under the principle of subsidiarity, state functions should be carried out at the lowest level that is practical.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:40 PM
In many cultures more egalitarian than ours, healthcare is not distributed on the basis of one’s ability to pay, and village elders acquire status by giving away their possessions, rather than hording them. The more you can give away, the more status you will be granted.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:09 PM
I see I got included into this great idea, so I am certainly in because I don’t want it to be said I was the reason that Davesix got out of matching up.
FYI - The Council Finance Committee voted 3-0 to recommend approval of this contract to the full Council this evening with most all Council members present. No one questioned the contract at all. Glad to see that everyone understands the importance of this program this year.
February 9th, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Here’s another example of how our community responds with such generosity when there’s a need to be met. Thank you for your expressed concern for the vulnerable elderly who choose to live out their lives at home and for making your own sacrifice to donate to our Friendly Visitors program.
In response to an earlier post by Bellinghamer, the county’s contribution pays about half the total cost of the program. Donations from individuals, businesses and congregations are the sources of the remaining half of our funding. Volunteers donate not only their time but also the cost of gasoline to travel throughout Whatcom County to wherever their senior friend resides.
Janie will be at tonight’s meeting and is happy to talk to anyone afterward, or she’s available by phone at the Friendly Visitors office tomorrow, 756-5179.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Bellinghammer,
Incidentally, David Cay Johnston (2003) reports that “Americans pay heavy taxes. When you add up our taxes and what we pay privately for health care and education our collective burden is heavier than that of many Europeans” (p. 1).
I’ve heard similar claims elsewhere, and given the fact that we pay about twice as much (as a proportion of our GDP) for health care and that we pay much, much more for defense than other OECD countries, I have little reason to doubt the claim.
Maybe we should reconsider our priorities.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Mr. Kirsch,
“I’m in. And I hope the matching offer will attract hundreds of posters.”
No subtext here, I’m sure.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Riley, I quoted your written words from your February 8th, 2010 at 4:48 PM comment, not Mr. Crawfords.
Sam, I noticed that you said I was ridiculous, yet never said I was incorrect.
Pinning a negative word association on an opponent is a classic tactic and helping that process along in this blog is either purposefully or unwittingly partisan.
Call me ridiculous, I’ll call you partisan.
oops, forgot the
February 9th, 2010 at 9:18 PM
Wally,
I agreed with your post about the tough choices made by the council, and about the motivation attributed to them by some here.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:37 PM
What Chairman Crawford fails to grasp and probably never will is that idea your parents and mine taught us; a society is measured by the compassion shown to the least able among us. Todd2 said it extremely well, “Who would deny a measly $20,000 (or even $50,000) to support in-home visitation of the elderly, many of whom are frail, lonely, and in-need of some greater connection to the larger community?” Who would deny it, well Sam Crawford for one and let’s see who else. Unconscionable!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Wally - Riley was stating his opinion. But I’ll question yours: if you’ve been to more than one county council meeting you’d be hard pressed to describe Ward or Sam as ‘making tough decisions with great thoughtfulness and compassion.’ Did you hear his rant about the food bank? Disturbing.
Speaking of compassion, here’s Kershner’s quote from about a year ago on this blog on the subject of the tea party protest: “We are fed up with paying for your mortgages, your healthcare, your education, your car, your food, your childcare, your publicly supported basket weaving classes, your rehab, your credit card debt, your debt in general, your retirement… and the list goes on.”
If those 3 were any less compassionate I’d think we’d fallen into a Dickens novel.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:52 PM
Where are we at, is Sam willing to hold the pot? One more fif-ty being offered up.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:53 PM
Sarah Kershner . . . .I like it!
February 9th, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Suzie Q, how very Andre Bauer of her.
Krashcourse Kathy’s greatest fictional hits.., I can see the drainfield from my window…
If you give then food banks, they will only breed more
socialists…..
February 9th, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Wally, unlike you, I don’t mince my words, or put them out there to be parsed. I mean what I say and say what I mean. I guess it’s the Idaho in me. When I make statements, I don’t write them to intentionally make it so they’re read more than one way so as to avoid culpability.
With that in mind, I don’t think it matters what I say. You’re pretty much the one poster on here who refuses to believe anything I’ve ever tried to explain to you, or anything I write. And that’s fine. We’ll leave it at that.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:46 AM
You know I hate to defend Wally, and this only applies in this one instance and to this one statement, but being direct is usually what lands me in hot water. We huddled mass of bloggers are required by the laws of etiquette and all that is blog Holy TO MINCE OUR WORDS. Oh the sweet freedom of being able to let the tongue wag free.
Hope that’s enough of those, if not 
February 10th, 2010 at 8:25 AM
Wally, again, I never claimed that Crawford said any of those things. It is my take and it is perfectly within fine to question his humanity in a polite and civil way. Especially in a situation like this that is, as Suzie Q mentioned, beginning to reflect a Dickins novel.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:39 AM
Imagine winning election based upon petty personal misertude.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Shaun,
Re: Krashcource Kathy: It’s the “Absorption Field” I can see the absorption field ….
And, there is no proof that OSS septic systems have ever contributed to water borne disease, viral or bacterial outbreaks! (Crawford and Brenner’s new OSS ordinance).
February 10th, 2010 at 2:58 PM
You’re right E. How can a comedian forget?