By Ralph Schwartz
As promised, Whatcom County Council member Sam Crawford proposed during last night’s budget debate to cut funding to Medic One, which provides life-saving emergency response in Bellingham and the county.
His proposal, which included breaking the contract with the city that calls for jointly funding Medic One through 2013, generated a great deal of debate as well as sympathy for Crawford’s position. However, he suddenly withdrew his motion just before it was to come to a vote.
Council members were visibly surprised at Crawford’s decision to withdraw his motion, and he gave no explanation.
One thing appeared certain. Crawford didn’t have the votes to get his budget amendment passed. Crawford ended the debate immediately after council member Bill Knutzen said he would support Medic One.
In a phone interview Wednesday afternoon, Crawford said he withdrew his budget amendment because he knew he didn’t have the votes. This became apparent to Crawford after council member Bill Knutzen said he would support Medic One.
“I will support the contract” with the city, Knutzen said. But he had a reservation.
“If this doesn’t work, and this kind of behavior (from the city) continues … we need to have some sort of an exit strategy.”
In the eyes of many on the county council, the city has behaved badly since the current Medic One contract was signed in 2005. In 2008, Bellingham firefighters refused to train paramedics working for a county fire district because of a labor dispute.
In the view of Knutzen and Crawford, the latest affront was Bellingham’s irresponsible spending in the 2013 budget, including what they perceived to be a generous new labor contract with city firefighters.
What sticks in the craw of other council members, too, are cost increases they have no authority to control. Medic One has a $1.1 million budget shortfall in 2013, in part due to the new firefighters’ union contract. A reduction in federal and state Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements is also to blame.
County and city attorneys are in the midst of writing new contracts that will reorganize Medic One, with the county and city sharing control on a new oversight board.
As council member Ken Mann put it, the county is held hostage by the EMS contract in its current form, and there is some justification for seeking to break it as Crawford had proposed.
“I don’t feel like we’re being dishonest” if council doesn’t honor the contract, Mann said.
“It’s not in good faith in this time to jam us with this huge price increase,” he said.
Pete Kremen said the council had to do the responsible thing and stick to the contract, but he understood Mann’s point of view.
“I agree with the sentiment expressed by council member Mann,” Kremen said. “Who’s really not bargaining in good faith here? This council has every right and every reason to feel that we need to make a statement.”
Kremen and Knutzen weren’t going to vote with Crawford, and neither was Barbara Brenner. (Council member Carl Weimer was silent during the debate but was almost certain to vote against Crawford’s amendment, too. He had opposed it earlier Tuesday in committee.)
“We look like politicians when we sit here making a statement when we screwed up, period,” Brenner said. “It’s not the city’s fault, it’s the county’s fault because we did that contract.”
“Somebody didn’t look at the fine print, and we got screwed. But it’s the law,” she said.
Plenty of blame to go around here! At least Crawford showed some backbone.
I firmly believe, and have for many years, that the only way the county will ever have good faith bargaining from the city is AFTER a parting of the parties (separation) has occurred. The county is simply bargaining from a very weak position, not having the resources at hand to replace the loss of EMS coverage by the city. The city knows this and so has no incentive to bargain…only to say “our way or the the highway”.
The fact that this mess continues and has gone on as long as it has is, sadly, a testament to the poor leadership sitting in those council chairs. They, and the city for that matter, ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Red Green, You do not have a clue on what you are talking about. You and Sam Crawford should be ashamed of of yourselves playing politics with people lives is
about as low as you can get. Happy Turkey Day!!!!
For clarification – Did Sam actually make a motion on his proposal and then withdraw it? And, if that is the case, did someone else second that motion before he withdrew it?
Sam’s next campaign slogan’s are shaping up.
“I was the ONLY ONE in FAVOR of defunding Medic One!”
Atta boy.
Crawford made the motion to bring his budget amendment up for discussion. Routinely, motions at county council don’t get seconds. County isn’t so strict on Robert’s rules.
Crawford’s whining reminded me of the City’s complaints about District Court some years ago. So the City bought property, renovated a building and staffed their own Municipal Court, thus costing taxpayers two to three times what it would have cost to stay in District Court. Now they are considering building and moving into an entire new court complex. This will only further increase the cost to taxpayers.
There are no efficiencies to be gained from Balkanizing emergency services. If anything, Bellingham, the County and small cities should look toward a unified, regional public safety administration. The only way to save money in the EMS racket is by reducing redundancy in administration and service provision.
Liberty Bell, what in the world does I-1053 have to do with funding the EMS?
and is insulting Councilman Mann really going to solve anything?
Ralph, actually over many years the County Council has given considerable time and effort to operating under a “strict” parliamentary process, but the council does not use Roberts’. We use the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (Sturgis). One reason for this is under Sturgis, motions do not require a second when being made by publicly elected representatives. It’s my understanding the intent is to allow a single legislator to bring any item forward he/she deems appropriate on behalf of their constituents for debate among the elected body. Sturgis also discourages abstentions. Thus at any time any elected official may obtain a vote from their peers on any issue they choose, with the position of each legislator provided publicly – through their vote – after appropriate debate. None of that “the motion died for a lack of a second”. I assume members of legislative bodies using Roberts who don’t second a motion would vote against it anyway, but who knows. Under Sturgis, the positions become pretty clear on any idea brought up by any council member.
I’ve never heard that Sturgis doesn’t require a second. I don’t believe that’s accurate. Generally under parliamentary procedure (with both Sturgis and Roberts based on hundreds of years of English common parliamentary practice), certain motions don’t require a second. Also, generally, small boards or committees don’t necessarily have to require seconds. That’s under both Roberts and Sturgis, I believe. I don’t know that the County Council is operating under that slimmed-down version of Sturgis, however.
Nevertheless, the main reason I asked was because I know the council does try its best to follow parliamentary procedure, and one person withdrawing a motion is not necessarily appropriate. Once a motion has been made (and, technically, restated by the chair), depending on the procedure used it still requires consent of the full body, because it’s not just that person’s motion anymore, it’s the body’s.
Totally nitpicking, but, again, if you’re going to follow a procedure, you may as well follow it.