After the, ahem, fun times at the Whatcom County Council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 8, I thought it prudent to wait a few days to let County Executive Pete Kremen have some time before chatting again about how he’ll appoint a County Council member.
Here are some tidbits from the conversation we had today:
How he’s assessing candidates
I’m just looking at all of the 25 names that were nominated by the council and I’m just going to use my judgment and certainly factor in input that I get from the community, though that won’t be the only factor.
I’m not going to base it on a popularity contest, that’ll happen when there is an election.
I take this seriously, I’m gonna take my time and try to appoint the individual who I think will be a contributing member to the council that will be able to fill the vacancy created with Kelly’s departure in the best interest of the community, the greater community.
Some council members didn’t want to appoint anyone who wanted to seek re-election, particularly Councilwoman Barbara Brenner. Is that a deciding factor for Kremen?
No, that’s not a deciding factor.
I certainly understand (Brenner’s) rationale. Her rationale has some merit, but it shouldn’t be the litmus test.
Is the rumor true that he’s made his pick already?
I haven’t decided that.
Are there any candidates that won’t get an in-depth look? Anyone with a lack of qualifications?
There are some people that the County Council, at least a handful, that not one of them got any votes from the council member.
There are a few individuals there that I’m not going to spend much time considering.
Have you solidified a timeline or date that you’ll announce the appointment?
I don’t have a specific date. It’s certainly going to be before the end of the month.
It may not take me until the end of the month, I may be able to come up with an appointee within the next couple of weeks.
Are there any issues that sway you toward one candidate because they support issues that you’re passionate about, for instance, the land swap with the state Department of Natural Resources?
I do want to see that move forward. That’s certainly an issue that I’m passionate about. That is important to me and I believe the entire community. Again, there’s no one litmus test that I have that is going to exclude anyone.
(The land swap) certainly is a factor. It’s not the only thing. I’m going to look at it holisitically. The bottom line is I want to appoint someone who will be able to represent the greater community’s best interests.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:10 PM
The greater community best interests seems to be the theme here.
If that is true Mr. Pete then should not the person you pick not be from any one particular point of view (as reflected by their previous actions) but more so be someone who without prejudice can make decisions based on the information given to them about any particluar issue? Decisions with the outlook weighted towards what is the greater community best interest and not a previously expressed position.
Therefore if that is true would not also those who have had one particluar position from one particular side be thusly eliminated from consideration? Whereas requiring a choice more so based on a person ability to make decisions purely in the interests of the greater community and not the different interests represented by one side or the other!
In conclusion if these assumptions made previously are right then would your decision be made more so hopefully on someone who has been out of the fray and can then now bring to the table an open mind?
Having people in public office with an open mind and the greater community’s best interest in mind, WOW, my hat will be off to you if you can pull that one off!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Mr. Kremen was in attendance at that meeting, and his demeanor made it clear that he is taking this decision very seriously. If I had brought some Advil with me, I would have offered him some.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Many (most?) of those who applied who haven’t previously or recently held public office come with a preconceived agenda. I believe the appointee should be someone who quite closely aligns with Kelly’s agenda…..after all, that is what the voters decided they wanted when they elected him. Appointing someone coming from a completely different direction would be a betrayal of the voters.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Thank goodness Kremen (says he) won’t use the litmus test of requiring someone to promise not to run.
Actually, I suspect such a litmus test could be unconstitutional because it would restrict the appointed person’s right to stand for election if he or she qualifies. I never did get why Barbara used this as one of her litmus tests. After all, if the ‘principle’ is that the appointed person, as an incumbant, would have an unfair advantage over other candidates, wouldn’t that mean that NO incombant should ever be allowed to stand for re-election.
Ditto the litmus test that a candidate should hold or swear to uphold only the political views of whoever makes the appointment. That would totally invalidate the appointee’s ability to listen to and represent ALL county citizens, but especially those in District 1, very effectively. This amounts to a politician-based gag rule.
Ditto on the litmus test of ‘no one from WWU.’
December 11th, 2009 at 1:07 PM
How can it be a betrayal of the voters to select someone whose mind is open enough to seek out solutions that equates the greater communities best interests first and foremost?
My God people can we ever get above the petty political bickering and do something that is truely about improving our community more so than constantly trying to make sure our own political view no matter from whatever side it is, is represented first?
The decision I speak of can only be made by a statesman first and a political animal last!
Pete which be you, actions do speak louder than any words!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 1:19 PM
AFY. in an ideal world you are quite right. Unfortunately, there are some applicants who see this as a chance for moving the balance of the council via appointment. My point is that such a shift of balance should be by the will of the voters not by the will of applicants or those who get to make appointments. Gosh, if we could take politics out of government wouldn’t it be a grand world! It will be interesting to see if Pete is statesman or animal.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Securing a promise not to run in the next election, is a policy that is being used more and more throughout the US.
I assume there is a valid reason for this , like respecting the voters wishes to have an open field for the next election without an particular candidate having an unfair advantage.
If is was unconstitutional, it would have been challenged long before now. Even the President’s Senate seat was filled this way.
Litmus no. Worth considering? You bet. Others are.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:45 PM
There are other thematic elements in play…
Failed Litmus Tests
Mr. Kremen will not rule out an applicant for appointment based on an answer to a yes-or-no question. He explicitly ruled out using the “Do you promise not to run for re-election if appointed?” question. I can only guess as to what else the Executive considers a litmus test, but anything that rules candidates out because they have taken a political position on something ever seems rather “litmusy”.
Remember, folks, the litmus test approach was used by the County Council, and it didn’t work.
Council Unanimity
There were applicants who didn’t get a single vote from any Council members on December 8. (Bill Gorman, Larry Jacoby, and David Pros)
The executive seems to be accepting that as a manifestation of the ‘greater community best interest’, so I’d be very surprised if any of those three applicants are appointed. (I’m guessing someone will see that as a litmus test, naturally)
December 11th, 2009 at 2:15 PM
From Wikipedia:
Securing a promise to not run for the next election seems like a textbook example of a litmus test. It may be worth considering. It may be an approach that has merit. But it looks a litmus test.
A read of Sam’s original post leaves no room for doubt. The Executive has made it crystal clear he considers it to be a litmus test. The Executive has also made it clear that he won’t be using that litmus test.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:16 PM
AFY, I disagree with your assesment that, “Mr. Pete then should not the person you pick not be from any one particular point of view.” The voters elected Kelly, therefore the person who takes over should have views pretty closely aligned with Kelly’s. Then when it’s time to vote again, voters are free to shake things up however they want.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Of course there are aspects of considerations I have my own prejudices towards (like I would like someone who is not interested in running agin mainly because they would have an unfair advantage as an incumbent of which they did not earn by being elected beforehand, to me that is a lot like having the advantage of a last name when one gets a job which they did not earn by working their way into it which could also be done with the right last name if one worked for it and not just walked into it) however I am taking Mr. Kremen at his own words:
“The bottom line is I want to appoint someone who will be able to represent the greater community’s best interests.”
To me the greater community includes all of the major sides both of which are represented individually, but who on the list can be the person that can be inclusive enough to really represent with an open mind the fairness it would take to give a hearing to an issue and not have a predetermined direction of decision prior to that hearing, to me it appears only someone who has not previously stood on one side or the other of the issue, maybe the list holds no one of that nature, but if it does, that would be IMHO the obvious choice to be made to comply with Pete’s bottom line and if that person is not there then should it not be the person who is nearest to being able to ascertain the representation that Pete desires?
What Pete’s aspires to do is noble but the big question that remains is Pete noble enough to really do it!
We shall see and I sure hope he is!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 2:39 PM
If Kremen, appoints a person who wishes actually stand for election, they will be able to begin amassing the funds for their election campaign from day one.
Their vote is available.
This should put them in a great financial position come election time.
If the BIAW or Futurewise comes a calling bearing campaign contributions, well the incumbent can begin collecting funds from them also, months ahead of any other candidates that are interested in standing for election.
This is a huge leg up. Converting an appointment to an elected official is an almost 90% success rate.
Special interests know this, and the amount of campaign funds that can be raised by this appointment far exceeds the fund raising ability of the garden variety candidate.
Appointing a person who is not running for election, destroys special interests like the BIAW or Futurewise’s influence.
Pete’s smart. Pete knows that there is a 90% chance of his appointment being the next “elected” County Council member.
This seriously changes the political calculus, and not in a way that is favorable to the voters choices.
Name recognition, campaign contributions, and favorable voting are all available to this appointment, unless Pete does the right thing and appoints someone who agrees not to run.
Do you want Pete to pick the next County Council member, or would we like the voters to pick them.
I have no horse in this race, but some do.
Some of them have their self-centered eyes on a campaign manager position, for whoever Pete appoints.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Should everything always purely be based on politics?
Why does it always have to be one side aginst another, why can we have only people in politics who can only stand with one side or the other?
This person Pete is appointing was not elected by anyone but Pete I reckon, why can’t that person be someone whose loyalty is first and foremost to making the right decisions based on Pete’s bottom line:
“The bottom line is I want to appoint someone who will be able to represent the greater community’s best interests.”
I really believe if there was a vote of the people of this county or even of this district and the question was whether this new comissioner should represent A.) one side or B.) another or that it be someone who C.) represents the greater community’s best interests, I do believe C.) would win hands down!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 6:29 PM
“The community’s best interest.” It sounds so easy. But on any given issue, my view of the community’s best interest and your view (whoever “you” may be) likely will not be the same.
For example, on the kennel license: 3 members of the Council thought that it was in the community’s best interest to charge owners for each dog (to help raise revenues and make owners pay equivalent costs); 3 members thought it was in the community’s best interest to leave the situation as it is (because changing the fees would punish the owners of multiple dogs).
Unless a Council member has a personal interest in the outcome, he or she will always be acting in “the community’s best interest.” What is that? Low taxes? Stewardship of natural resources for the future? Transportation improvements over mental health services or vice versa?
It’s not so easy.
Furthermore, anyone interested enough in the issues to be able to get up and running on the Council will have a perspective, a track record, something that says what they think. Those who don’t, aren’t involved and will be clueless. Is that in the community’s best interest? Don’t think so.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Dear King,
I agree with most of what you have written. Experiance and intellect matters.
Where I think you have missed somthing is, that by not running again, you effectively shut down any special interests influence which might be bought by dangling future campaign funds in front of their nose. Because of the leg up appointment, this money may be substantial. Organizations like the BIAW may just jump into influence big land zoning issues.
Special interest money seldom has the communities broad interest at heart.
I don’t think any one is too owrried about the dog kennel law., zonimg is another matter.
You think any special interests would be interested in zoning?
December 11th, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Not the “..special interest money is going to destroy the county..” rhetoric again. If the BIAW is so almighty influential, how come they’re always getting shut down at the polls? Hide, run for your lives, special interest money is going to have it’s way with your sister. Be afraid, very afraid….
December 11th, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Is anyone really naive enough to believe that ONLY incumbents are able to garner big $$ from little & big financial supporters, including special interest groups?
Come on, folks. Who got the most funding and from where in the recent elections? It wasn’t always incumbents or candidates with name recognition, right?
I imagine the litmus test of “promising not to seek election next time” hasn’t been tested in court because it’s way too expensive and hard to prove. This doesn’t t mean that such a litmus test is constitutional. Neither does it mean that litmus tests don’t more or less amount to political bribbery by those responsible for making the appointment, better knows as tit (I’ll vote for you if. . . ) for tat (you promise not to run again), or quid pro quo if you prefer Latin.
=
December 11th, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Wynne, the contributions for incumbents nationally is a three to one advantage in fund raising. Obviously, each race is different, but the facts are well known.
Incumbents have a huge money raising advantage, as well a name recognition.
Nationally over 90% of incumbents in Congress, are re-elected. And this is with an approval rating of 25%.
Nope, incumbency almost locks this seat up for the next election.
Any one wishing to bet, I am offering even money, and you are betting for a successful challenge to the appointed person being unsuccessful in the election run.
Wynne, Jurgen, Bikerbob, Apexnard, and King, step up with your money boys.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the biggest reason that appointees are sometimes banned from re-election is that whatever party they’re affiliated with doesn’t want to have to support the appointee incumbent and a running opponent from the same party, thus dividing the votes within the party? It certainly wouldn’t have any impact on people who don’t care about party lines…
And why the heck did you mention me by name, Doug? The only input I’ve put into this issue prior to this comment is simply asking “why?”, because I haven’t been given enough evidence to support it. Now you think I’m as equally entrenched as you and you’re challenging me to put my money where my mouth is? I take back my pre-election comments–you aren’t any better than the port people you wanted to replace.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Relax Bob, I offered the wager in jest.
Jest in case someone wanted to lose some.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:17 AM
I think that the disconnect here is that Wynne is talking about local races and Doug is speaking more generally. The County Council race in November had very different dynamics from generalized Congressional races. Based on that evidence, if an incumbent were opposed by a candidate with building industry support, which candidate will have the biggest war chest? If I read the reports of funding and spending correctly, it wouldn’t be the incumbent.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Obviously handicapping an individual race, would depend on a host of factors, but in no event is betting against the appointees eventual re-election, a good bet.
I tend to looks at events in odds, and the odds are so stacked against any challenger to this appointee, that odds are, if allowed to run again, Pete Kremen is essentially picking the winner of the next election, not the voters.
Odds are.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:26 AM
But Doug, by definition the voters will be picking the winner of the next election. Blame them for choosing to keep or not keep incumbents. This isn’t Iran and Pete Kremen does not decide who wins elections.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Nationally, Bob, 98% of Congress is re-elected, even though their approval rating is less than 25%.
I understand that this could only happen is the game is rigged.
I don’t buy, “Its the voters faulty. Blame the voters”.
Folks get tired of rigged games. Please don’t rig this one.
The voters are not stupid.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:39 AM
I took Doug’s bet as he presented it… a harmless jest.
I don’t recall actually taking a position that there was no advantage to incumbency.
Doug didn’t make this up. An incumbent’s advantage at election time is an observed phenomenon. Like gravity. You can ‘disagree’ with it, but stuff still falls down.
What I disagree with is the notion that the cure for this advantage is to secure a promise not to run for re-election from an appointee.
How secure is that promise? Really?
All an appointee would have to do to back out of such an unenforceable and informal social contract is to say the magic words “I changed my mind”.
More to the point, when you apply a litmus test like this, you are almost guaranteeing that the position will be filled by someone who is willing to openly and publicly lie to get what they want.
A person who intends to run for re-election and refuses to lie about that fact will be ‘rewarded’ for that honesty by not getting the job. A person who intends to run for re-election and lies about that fact will be ‘punished’ for that deceit by remaining eligible for the job.
So, this litmus test only guarantees that the appointment will be given to one of two types of people:
1) Someone who really won’t run for re-election.
2) A liar.
Where is the liar litmus test?
And what are the odds on a liar being appointed to this seat?
December 12th, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I am going to echo Apexnerd here. I also don’t recall taking a position that there was no advantage to running as an incumbent. I also echo the reasoning behind his thought experiment, which I hadn’t though of prior.
I do disagree that there is something else responsible for it besides the voters like Doug is saying. Ultimately the decision is up to them. There is no election rigging. The voters, for any number of reasons, elect them of their own free will. Yes, you can argue that they do it because they don’t want change or they are won over by lots of advertising or whatever you want, but ultimately the voters are responsible for whoever gets elected. Disallowing a candidate from the process for an arbitrary reason seems un-democratic. What if people *want* the appointee to remain?
I certainly hope “I understand that this could only happen is the game is rigged” was in massive jest. “You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor… and would have different conclusions written on it that you could jump to…”
December 12th, 2009 at 12:13 PM
You gentlemen, or gentlewomen are proving to be honest debaters.
I had to chuckle at the risk of a politician turning out to be a liar. I don’t care who you are, that there’s funny.
Nationwide there is a groundswell of distrust and anger directed towards our political leaders. Hard not to notice, but in most reliable polling the people unhappy with government represent ~70% of the voters. This is a vote of no confidence, and I submit not a healthy sign for out nation, and communities.
Rather than attack various groups that feel disaffected, I simply recognize that many of these folks have a rationale basis for their complaints, and that the complaints are simply too voluminous to pass off with a wave of the hand. It is only rational to distrust politicians which are caught too often spending our money to line their own pockets. I can provide examples, if necessary.
Dismissal of their complaints only makes it worse.
Rebuilding the trust in government is critical.
As we are all in agreement that this appointment if allowed to stand for election , would have a significant advantage bestowed upon them. This is precisely why 24 people applied for this position, they know who ever gets this appointment has a significant advantage, …
…. but where is the advantage to the voters?
My question is rather simple:
How would appointing a person who agrees not to run for re-election benefit the voters?
If we wish to give the most respect to the voters, then we will give them what gives them the most competitive choices, come election time.
I just don’t see any significant advantage to the voters to have someone appointed that is going to run for re-election.
Too much of this discussion is really an arguement for personal choices of their preferred appointee, knowing full well that this appointee will be the odds on favorite for the next election, while attempting to argue that they are really looking out for, and respecting the voters.
They are peeing in our pockets, and trying to convince us that it is raining.
Do I think politicians lie? Yep.
Do political operatives lie? Yep.
Do I like distrusting politicians? Nope.
Could I learn to trust politicians? Yep.
Would politicians have to earn my trust? Yep.
Do I think politicians trust the voters? Nope.
Do I think politicians respect the voters? Mostly at election time.
Would they have to tell the truth to earn my trust? ABSOLUTELY!
December 12th, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I accept Doug K’s overall thesis. However, my focus is more narrow.
There are 25 applicants that Pete Kremen will be chosing from to fill this vacant seat. He has made it clear that he will not be using a “promise not to run for election” as a litmus test for who he will and won’t consider.
For the sake of the philosophical exercise in play on this thread.. Who of the 25 applicants for the vacant County Council seat have promised not to run for election if appointed?
I saw Ward Nelson take that position at the Dec 8 Council Meeting, so that’s one.
Is it safe to assume that every person Barbara Brenner voted for also passed this specific litmus test?
December 12th, 2009 at 5:01 PM
John Kole and Don Hansey also made the commitment to not seek re-election, Apexnerd, according to their applications, which are linked on this blog.
Brenner didn’t vote for Kole, because she said she didn’t have a chance to speak with him (that was her “litmus test” the entire night), but she did vote for Hansey.
December 12th, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Wynne makes the accurate observation which is that in the recent past, in local elections, there’s a disadvantage to being an incumbent. I bet Sam Crawford faces the same problem in less than 2 years. Doug is talking about national statistics. What we saw here locally - an irritation with incumbents - is likely to be still going on next year and the year after.
But I had to laugh at this from Doug: “I have no horse in this race, but some do. Some of them have their self-centered eyes on a campaign manager position, for whoever Pete appoints.”
Seriously? I mean, seriously? People run screaming for the woods when someone asks them to volunteer for campaign work. It’s not exactly a high-faluting high-paying power position here in Whatcom County. Mostly it’s people begging their friends and family to help them with the ordeal.
And the notion of AFY’s!!!!! that there are people who put their names forward for a political office without an idea in their head about issues is somewhat disturbing. Where does it come from, this idea that there are thoughtful informed people out there who fall out of nowhere free of values, divorced from opinion? Is that really a good thing? It strikes me as vacant & hollow.
The truth is that ethical people who step forward for public office do so because they care and they care because they have values. Those values have led them to have - gasp! - opinions.
I think that’s a good thing. Even better, when they’re straightforward and honest about their opinions.
December 13th, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Ditto what Suzie Q said about campaign managing. Believe me, unless your name is David Plouffe or Joe Trippi, you aren’t making any money doing it. Especially at the local level. The best you can hope is that they comp. your expenses. Mostly its just friends helping each other.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:54 AM
There are 25 flesh-and-blood, real life Whatcom County citizens that Mr Kremen has to chose from. And for all of the talk about litmus tests, national congressional approval ratings, and whatever the hell AFY is talking about… I’m not hearing much about which of those 25 candidates any of these concern trolls would support.
Doug Karlberg… You don’t have a horse in this race? You live in Whatcom County. This decision does affect you. There are 25 horses in the stalls. Pick one.
AFY… same to you.
I’ve spared this thread my choice because I’ve already posted it repeatedly elsewhere, but…
I recommend Dan McShane.
And… I get that many of you don’t want Dan.
Really.
Honestly.
I heard you the last couple of dozen times.
So, those of you who want “new blood”… unless there is an applicant whose name is actually Bob Newblood, that doesn’t help.
There is no Fred Litmus-Test. There is no Annabelle NotGonnaRunForElection. And there also doesn’t appear to be a Buford T. OpenMindWithoutPrejudice or an Ursula Van NeverTookAPositionOnAnything.
Is it so hard just to pick one of the 25 names?
And if it is hard, then how easy do you think it will be for the County Executive?
Thank you for the concern, trolls. Now pick somebody.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Would it be in poor taste to say that Pete might require a stiff drink before deciding?
December 13th, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Pretty good discussion. Next step is for citizens, as well as Pete to take a hard look at the applicants, to make our choice and lobby. I’ve not done this yet just know of a few applicants. I’m leaning toward Jean Melious (knowledgeable, fairly centrist, reputation for being stead and balanced) and McShane.
I’ve only moderate interest in McShane but he did win just about 50% of the total vote recently with a firm majority in District 1. I think that should count for a great deal, as it would respect (”listen to”) the will of We the People
in his district. Dan also knows the WCC process (a good thing, to me) and would provide continuity with the District 1 constituents who elected Kelley.
Moreover, I *truly don’t think* Dan’s being the appointed incumbent would *enhance* his chances for 2010 election one whit. If anything, his appointment would inflame the many anti-McShanes to even great effort$ to unseat him in 2010 — unless of course, Dan were to use time between now & then on the CC to woo just those folks by unexpected votes. Could happen.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Jean Melious
December 13th, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Wow.
I’m impressed.
I woulda never thought that one person picking one person for a council seat would have any legs at all.
Much less spark a debate.
Kremen won’t win favor with any choice he makes - the entire council direction until the next election will be on his head.
I told him to count votes and he’s assured me he will.
Uh-Huh.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:39 PM
It is worth noting that the only reason Mr. Kremen “gets” to make this decision is because the County Council punted.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I think Pete should take great care to not appoint anyone AFY!?!?!?! would approve of because that would give the property-rightistas a veto proof majority. That won’t be good. Barbara Brenner and Sam Crawford in charge…
And there’s a lot to be said for selecting someone similar to the person the voters put in that spot. It seems most respectful to the voters.
December 13th, 2009 at 7:14 PM
At first I thought it would be hard for Mr. Kremen to do this.
Then I realized that all Mr. Kremen has to do is stick to the list of 25 candidates for the vacancy.
AFY’s description of the type of appointee he would support appears to exclude every person on that list.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Property rightistas? Boy you folks sure know how to marginalize and dis people don’t you. From the rhetoric one hears in this corner day in and day out, trying to marginalize people who value their property rights, trying to assign names to them that sound derogatory, foreign or smack of ideas that seem alien to our culture, when the real alien ideas are those that seek to retain all those rights for the state–one would assume that most of this malarkey is just for the amusement of fellow like minded despots and ignoramuses who want to turn a tin ear to the rights we enjoy.
No matter how close McShane came, clearly there were more anti votes for him than pro. That says something for a person who’s views, positions on issues and personality were widely known. It says even more that he was rejected. If selected, the only reason he would be in office is because he got appointed on a technicality by a fellow Democrat succumbing to the whines of sore losers who are verklempt because their dogma was widely rejected throughout the county and they may have to learn to live with being on the low side of power for a few years.
n.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:13 AM
There is no such thing as an ‘anti-vote’. If you want to see the results of McShane’s campaign as half the county voted for his opponent not because voters thought he was preferable to McShane but because his opponent was anybody but McShane, fine, but you’re assuming a lot. For most of the rest of us, second place does not mean last place like it does to you, and the votes he received were/would be more than a lot of these other candidates would have received if they had run.
Back to the original article, I feel bad for Kremen and am still surprised that the council deferred the decision to him. It would have been better for the several people in the council to make the decision than it will be for a single person to do it. Kremen will get flak no matter who he chooses, and this shouldn’t be part of his job.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:27 AM
My Top two preferences are:
Ward Nelson
Orphalee Smith
Ward has been elected by the Dist 1 and county voters to represent them already so he would be the perfect choice to fill this seat until next years election. He’s “current” on all the issues and would not require any ramp up time to understand the issues the council will be facing.
I would love to hear why people don’t think he wouldn’t be a good selection for this position.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Doug Karlburg has just as much right as anyone living in District 1 to express who should replace Bob Kelly. I find it ironic that the Dems took a stand AGAINST district only representation and now many of them are making the argument that Dan McShane would best represent District 1 or that District 1’s voice should be most represented in whoever is selected to replace Mr. Kelly. Sorry folks, that ship has sailed and as much as I wish we had district only representation we don’t.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Bob, how can you assert there is no such thing as an anti-vote? What does it mean when a lifelong Democrat and liberal votes for a Republican with whom he only shares a few similar views because he does not trust or respect a particular candidate or group of candidates and thinks it’s time to restore some centrist balance?
Unless you’re asleep in this small county, anyone who follows things recognizes that this past election was a rejection of the last several years of anti-job, anti-growth attitudes, that on their face have some merit; but that the tone of those on the left, who now control much of county and Bellingham politics, has been every bit as self righteously superior, uncompromising, and tone deaf to opposing views as any past incarnation on the right. (I give you as exhibit A, the paranoia of Suzie Q)
The voters voted for a change. The message still hasn’t been received I expect, but every now and then Kremen can sometimes do something that can be viewed as leadership; and he just might decide to go with someone more neutral and less of a lightening rod than McShane. His choice will actually signal if there is going to be some real progress made around here or if we are going to continue on with divisive politics that produce nothing more than moratoriums and dead-ends. It’s time for some sophistication.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Hammer, as is often your wont, you have nailed it again. Those to the right of issues are not the only standard bearers of hypocrisy. The local Democratic mutants are also practitioners of that low art. Consistency and integrity be damned. Winning is it’s own virtue. Right is might.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Jurgen, I agree totally with you about name-calling & attacks on so-called ‘property rightists’. Partly we agree because of the respect issue.
Also, nasty polarizing diminishes the importance of property rights. Property rights is a complex and crucial issue in our social-political-economic system. Moreover, the notion that only ‘conservatives’ value property rights strikes me as utterly ridiculous and dysfunctional
This is ridiculous because anyone who owns property, from a bicycle to a car to a gun to 100 acres of land to a bank account, believes they have the right to not have that property taken from them or rules imposed on it’s use without cause or its use *needlessly* restricted.
But there are valid and just restrictions on what we can do with property we own. So, I agree with and applaud the fact there are laws prohibiting me (and others) from doing “anything I want” with my car (not drive drunk; not run people over; not driver of the other side of the road etc etc).
Likewise, I agree with and applaud laws that require me to not pollute the soil, water etc , to test my septic system regularly.
What I don’t buy into is the notion that any government absolutely can or should guarantee that rules will never change as conditions change. Nor do I buy the notion that actions or rules (or lack of rules) made by the government, bankers, or even the all-holy Market guarantees a gain on money I or my ancestors spent on my property.
Do, I accept that I do not have “the right” to subdivide and sell portions of my property any way I want, with absolutely no consideration of how that will impost costs on *other* citizens for years and years ahead because it will increase our commonly paid for school, road, etc infrastructure.
I REALLY, REALLY believe in property rights — and that means the property rights of others, not just my own! If the government is to protect MY property rights (including financial and other benefits), then it must protect the property rights of ALL.
Polarizing property rights issues and ‘giving ownership’ of those issues to just one group of citizens is very disrespectful. It’s also a great strategy for politicians, bullies, the power-hungry and money-brokers to divide and conquer citizens. By getting us into meaningless, heated rants against each other, they keep us from talking / listening to each other respectfully and figuring out how to improve things.
PS: I own a home & land in the county & I am as fierce in protecting my property rights as anyone. As strange as it will seem to some, that is one of the main reasons that I voted for Carl, Laurie, Ken and Dan.
PPS Not all laws & regs make sense to me; some are downright crazy. But since We The People — which includes our elected officials, corporations, etc — generate laws, I expect a mix of sane and crazy: We’re ALL bozos on this bus.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Sorry - I know that seemed to go off the topic of who should be appointed.
However, my thoughts are related because arguments for ‘new directions’ tacitly accepts the idea that only applicants who support the polarized view of “property rights”. I strongly disagree with this over-simplistic viewpoint.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Hammer,
I appreciate your open mind. I have intentionally not favored one candidate or another. To me there are two questions being answered here.
One: Who do you want for the County Council appointment?
Second: Who would be the best appointment for the citizens?
The first question brings our response that tends to be about the writers personal choices, for what ever reasons, with sometimes a hidden agenda.
I would prefer that folks thought about this appointment in the terms of “us”, in stead of “me”.
Which person would bring “us” together and produce a better community. That is the goal, isn’t it?
Some would like to think that this goal is naive, but I prefer to think of it as setting the bar properly and high. I am old enough to remember when our community thought more about “us” than “me”.
I can’t think of a single impediment to getting the pendulum swinging back the other direction.
All we need is strong leadership, which this appointment could help produce putting “us” back on the agenda..
December 14th, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Who do I want for the City Council appointment? Jean Melious
Who would be the best appointment for the citizens? Jean Melious
As Planning Commission Chair, Jean is current on virtually all key issues facing the county.
Jean has demonstrated great integrity on the PC and would do the same on Council, and I believe, she is well respected in the community.
Besides her law degree from Harvard won’t hurt!
December 14th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
There is no way you are going to really, really sell all that to someone in the crosshairs of change– even if they agree for the most part. We tolerate collateral damage so we tolerate a few property owners biting it big time. Right? I find that to be spoken like a person who is fairly comfortable in the knowledge that their own situation is not going to be attacked. Just wait until the hairy eye of eminent domain and public interest peeks in your window.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:01 AM
You mean a genuine “We the People” instead of “Me the People” approach to the appointment?
The real heart of the difficulty is that We The People have an incredible range of notions of what’s good for themselves and others — and we really, really really don’t like it when we don’t get OUR way.
Americans’ predominant view of politics seems to be that elections, democracy and democratic decisions are good, but only if it means that the people judging “ok-ness” get their way (which I refer to as Me The People). When the majority (elected or otherwise) make decisions and laws other decisions, democracy is definitely NOT ok.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Jurgen, I don’t know if your comment was directed at me or not; but, here’s a suggestion.
If you disagree, just say so and say why. Is there a need to criticize someone you disagree with every time?
Who do you want?
Who is best for the citizens?
Simple question. No need to denigrate someone who has a different choice or thinks differently than you.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Jurgen,
There are lots of crosshairs these days, and I can assure you that RIGHT NOW my property rights (use & value) are in some very, very big crosshairs as we speak.
I still believe what I said.
Protecting property rights is NOT either-or issue.
As I said before, I do NOT believe that every land use regulation or action is valid or reasonable (the We’re all bozos principle
But what I own IS connected to the world upon which we all depend. That interdependence is real and needs responsible support.
Our very conversation shows the reality of our need to support not just ME but WE. You may be working on your computer, I on mine, but our work is based on our mutual deep inter-dependence with the millions whose work extracted the minerals used in our computers, built the computers, transported them to our homes, wrote the software, keep the servers working, built and maintain the electric grid that powers our conversation, etc.
Me the People (I only care when I think it’s in my favor) just isn’t good enough.
It’s not good enough because it ignores the reality of our interdependence.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Sounds like a Wynne - Win
December 14th, 2009 at 12:15 PM
There is no perfect candidate any more than there is a perfect person!
I have only one main wish for who Pete decides on: that they look at this appointment as an opportunity to be someone “who will be able to represent the greater community’s best interests”.
Maybe there is no one who fits that bill completely but there is IMHO applicants who have clearly shown in their past political actions that they represent one particular interest in this county and therefore could not or would not have a mind that is open enough to represent those who are of another interest. To me, “to represent the best interests of the greater community” you MUST be able to represent everyone, if this is true than those who we all know who have predetermine positions should have a strike against them.
Pete has issues that are important to him, but a candidate who’s mind is open and who will give any issue a fair hearing should also conclude when all of the facts are in to support what is right and just and I truly believe that Pete is an honest person, a public servant who does want what is best for this county and would be the first to say that he himself is not always right and would foremost wish every council decisions that is made, be a just one first no matter how he personally felt of the issue.
Therefore, maybe there is not a candidate who is perfect but which one of these candidates who can go into this position with a mind open enough to make decisions for the greater community’s best interests to me is the right candidate, if Pete can find that person than to me Pete should get from all sides, a hat tip for a job well done!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 14th, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Jason Heck made money as a campaign manager, Riley.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Bellinghammer - you mentioned why you think Nelson would be a good interim councilman, but what about your thoughts on why you like Smith for the spot?
December 14th, 2009 at 1:34 PM
We still have district-only voting in the primaries.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:58 PM
I know that people make money, I have made money as a campaign manager and plan to do so again, but to suggest that it is a financial motivation for urging people to run? That is what is ridiculous. Yes, you can and do make money, but it is not mad crazy money as the kids are saying these days.
Jason Heck making money as a campaign manager . . . and he calls me a hired gun. Fun times.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I would personally like to thank AFY!!! for writing an entire post in normal, recognizable English.
It’s such a relief to not have to fight my way through all the Faulknerisms.
I hope this is a sign of things to come.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I’s won’t count on it!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 14th, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Very thoughtful comments.
Incumbents didn’t have much of an advantage in the last election, as shown by the close vote (not money raised.)
I would rather have someone wanting to be elected so I can see how they vote, rather than someone who doesn’t care if they are representing all the citizens.
At the risk of sounding self-serving, one of the reasons some of the applicants did not get any votes is because they are unaligned. Neither right nor left. Hopefully, judging each issue on what the community wants, not an ideology.
Look at the list, the “no vote” getting people are the true independents, neither side can count on their vote.
Only the applicants whose vote can be counted on (regardless of the issue) received votes from the Council, why should either side vote for someone who may not agree with them from time to time?
I believe many local issues cut through both sides.
One of the reasons citizens have become polarized is because some on the council did not make the Planning Director make sure ALL people were included in various discussions. Many people felt ignored or left out. Angry. I don’t blame them!
We have good thinkers in our county and all sides should have a seat at the table.
If Pete wants an independent, unaligned knowledgeable Council person, he has that opportunity.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Life Savor, who did I denigrate? I was responding to Wynne but while responding more of you came in, but I don’t think i was denigrating his fine answer, just expanding my own opinion.–and again who or in what way did I denigrate. Am I supposed to agree with every nugget of whatever that falls from you lips or your shinbone? Did you feel slighted Wynne? I thought you were pretty right on, but I still have a different opinion–so what.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Re: Council did not make the Planning Director make sure all people were included in various discussions.
I dsagree with Dave Pros assertion that citizens were not listened to during the Comprehensive Plan review. I saw lots of yellow shirts and listened to hours of of angry testimony during the public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission and the County Council. I also observed plenty of rude behavor towards individuals and elected officials by those same people.
Anger does not create good public policy.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Jurgen et al.
Nope, J. Your response to my ‘property rightista’ comment could have been interpreted as disrespectful, but I didn’t take it that way. Rather it seemed a good opportunity to clarify my views and situation, which I did.
It’s easy to bait, take the bait, get hooked (and sometimes landed) but I prefer other options in discussions. The baiting-hooking-reacting cycle follows an all too predictable course and, when repeated too often, becomes deadly boring.
I’ve one of those totally great gender-free names, don’t I? You’ve no idea how many truly wonderful and curious situations it’s led to over the years, nor how much I learn about peoples assumptions about the world from seeing whether they mentally check the M or F box.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Oh yes, and let’s remember that sometimes ‘the bait’ is solely in the mind of the fish. The poor fly in the water really isn’t trying to be bitten. Ditto with written and verbal exchanges. “Listening” like most everything else we do is a collaborative effort, which means neither ’sender’ nor ‘receiver’ entirely determines the meaning of what’s said.
Like I said before … interdependence is the reality and the rule, not the exception.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:48 PM
On the other hand, Wynne, some of us just run to the voter registration database really quick to satisfy that curiosity.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:03 PM
elisabeth,
For people to feel included the Planning Dept should gather community leaders from both sides, go to the area in question if necessary, clearly state the problem trying to be resolved, and encourage the local leaders to reach a recommendation (assisted by a planner.) If the solution (or issue) is contentious, have a meeting with the larger effected community BEFORE it is brought to the Planning Commission.
This helps all the effected people know what issue is under review, participate, and hopefully reach a consensus. It shows local govt values the feelings/opinions of the effected people.
It helps dissipate tensions and irritation, and helps all the effected people understand the issue and possible solutions.
Currently, on most issues, a planner is assigned the issue, decides the solution, writes a report, then pass that up to his politically appointed boss who approves the decision, then it goes to the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission hearings is where most people become aware of what is going on.
This is the problem.
If this is the level you find out about an issue that affects you, you feel you have an up hill fight, and you do.
The Planning Dept will defend its decision (sometimes very stubbornly) and pressures the Planning Commission to move it up to the decision makers (County Council) with very few, if any, changes, sometimes to a point that the Planning Dept recommends against the Planning Commission changes.
It IS an up hill fight, public input, public understanding AND cooperation should be at least attempted BEFORE it goes to the Planning Commission.
Even when the Planning Dept is right, they still have an obligation to sell it to the detractors, gain a consensus.
We don’t need more lawsuits.
Local govt is where the people have the greatest voice in how their community functions and agreement can and should be sought on this level.
To let the discussion on issues degenerate to a “property rights vs environment” polarization serves no one.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Wynne - I apologize for using the term ‘property rightista’. It’s been in common use in another paper, and is too simplistic. Especially since I believe I have an absolute property right to not have my property and my family’s drinking water harmed by the actions of others. You’re right on that.
I absolutely stand by my statement that Pete should avoid a veto-proof majority.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Suzie, in what way do you also do harm to the drinking water of others? Who is downstream from your lifestyle. I’m not attacking you I just wonder if you can assess and admit your own part in planet degradation.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Comment on the district only voting situation…
I think that district only in 2009 would have meant McShane wins d1 and Teigrob wins d2 : a wash. Likewise, I have heard people say that in 2007, Mann would have beat Crawford with the assistance of county wide voters, but Kelly would have lost to Hatch if the non-Nooksack districts had gotten to vote on that race.
Sam, the “primary as district voting” is a facade, because there are seldom 3 viable primary candidates. So in the long run with county-wide voting, district 1 can vote 62% McShane and still get Kershner, or district 2 could vote 62% Crawford and still get stuck with a marginalized liberal representing them.
Imagine if our state did this with our US congressmen ? Seattle would simply outvote Wenatchee and Spokane, and then Doc Hastings and Ms. McMorris would be gone, and whatever lefty happened to step up out there, would get a free ride to DC. What’s the point of even pretending that the county districts have representation, if mere residence trumps the ideological consensus of a district ?
.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:27 AM
As much as it pains me to say, I agree with Sean Hannity!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Me three! It also goes for our fair city!
But it sure keeps the “powers at be” happy (well most of times at least!)!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 17th, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Dave,
I agree. It is not in the community’s best interest to create a “property rights” vs. “environment” debate.
Nevertheless, that’s exactly what happened. A group of politically savvy partisans used fear and anger to manipulate and derail public process.
You may agree with the property rights folks, but that does not legitimize the tactics they used to create discord and unrest in our community.
December 17th, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Elisabeth, just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so. Who and in what way did these savvy people derail a process? The process is already weighted to your view, where’s the balance? Every time you lose, you will blame it on some sort of nefarious action. Your side is using fear and community discord to push your issues just as surely as the other side. Statements by Weimer and others during the election always paint this evil shadow force of property rightistas, but we all know that is nonsense, so it makes your view point sound nonsensical. It does get the Luddites and the dunderheads all rallied up though.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Elisabeth,
I am not addressing agreement or disagreement, but the process.
Our problems are better resolved if ALL effected people understand ALL the impacts of a problem and ALL the impacts of possible answers. We have good, sincere people throughout the County who will help their side better understand the complexities of the issues. Most disruptive behavior happens because people react with only a fraction of knowledge about an issue, or because they find out too late to have real input.
I do not condone rude and disruptive behavior from anyone.
I believe local issues are best resolved by bringing people together to avoid polarization.
I did not receive any votes because I am not a vote that either side can count on.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Once you tell a landowner that they can’t do something as it adversely affects someone else,
all bets against polarization are off.
Add in the State and its Laws that will not be subverted by any agreement within the council,
and you have what might rightly be called,
A Rights versus Environment dichotomy.
And,
since it takes no smarts to demand to do things with your land,
but many smarts to understand the implications thereof,
the battle lines are cast for good.
And with battle,
comes blame.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Back to the original post.
How can Ward Nelson be appointed to the seat for District 1, position B (the seat Bob Kelly vacated) while simultaneously serving in the seat for District 1, position A?
The Executive has to fill the vacancy by December 26. The appointment becomes effective immediately. Nelson’s term for District 1 position A doesn’t end until Ms. Kershner is sworn in.
If Ward Nelson is appointed to the vacant seat, he will hold two seats on the County Council until January of 2010.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:39 PM
What are you afraid of Apex, that he might declare himself Emperor and open up the Games again?
He hasn’t been my favorite politician either, but he has been one of the most reasonable and consistent.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Jurgen…
You didn’t answer my question with a responsive answer.
I’ll respond to your question after you respond to mine.
I’ll phrase it differently this time…
Does Executive Kremen have the legal authority to give anyone two seats and two votes on County Council?
December 20th, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Apex, in response to your question about Nelson … the answer is … he would resign his seat and serve the rest of Kelly’s term. Kershner already takes the seat in 2010, so it’s sort of a moot point.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Dave - the county sent out thousands (nearly 20,000) notices about the rezones regarding the LAMIRD issue and I believe they had some local meetings.
What more can they do to get citizen participation? They have a limited budget (i.e. ~ taxpayer money to be spent to get the word out) and only so many other resources. They’ve put more documents online for the rural element update than I’ve ever seen on the county Web site, literally. There are hundreds of documents regarding that. They’ve put every meeting notice there (and we’ve put all notices in the newspaper, which reaches quite a few people), they put every single citizen comment there and every single revision to the proposal has gone there.
People keep insinuating that there hasn’t been enough public outreach. I’d like an explanation why, because the factual evidence says something completely different.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:33 PM
The point of all of this is to appoint a seventh member of council. Appointing Ward Nelson just shifts which seat is vacant.
How do you fill a vacant seat by creating another vacant seat?
December 21st, 2009 at 4:08 AM
Apex,
It’s just a few weeks. We are no worse off with Nelson acting as Kelly and Nelson’s own seat vacant, than we would be with Nelson playing out his last few weeks in his own seat… with Kelly’s seat vacant. It would still be Nelson plus one vacant seat either way. Just whether he sits in the chair to the east or the chair to the west on the dais.
Furthermore, the council isn’t going to do much of anything during christmas and new year’s eve. The remaining time with 6 council members is going to be about as impactual as Joe Elenbaas’s State Senate appointment term (occured in this exact same time of the year when the legislature was not in session).
.
December 21st, 2009 at 7:10 AM
Sam, factual information is not the ally of purveyors of sour grapes.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:49 AM
I don’t really have an answer for you there, I just wanted to offer up one possible way that he could be the appointee.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:18 AM
I can appreciate the point that it is just a few weeks.
You summed it up perfectly. It would still be Nelson plus one vacant seat either way.
However, Whatcom County Code requires a county vacancy to be filled in 30 days. Appointing Ward Nelson to the vacant seat leaves a vacant seat on County Council for around 45 days.
Does Pete Kremen have the authority to leave a vacant seat in the County Council for longer than 30 days?
December 21st, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Apex - county attorneys generally interpret the 30-day provision of an appointment as being rather open-ended. It doesn’t technically say that he has to make the appointment within 30 days, just that the County Council, if they can’t come up with a selection in that period, give up that authority to the county executive, who “shall” make an appointment. But it doesn’t give any instructions as to when he “shall.”
Barring any type of legal challenge, Kremen could leave the seat vacant all the way until the day before the next election, if he chose to do so. Very unlikely, of course.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:31 PM
I am glad you are feeling at least a little better Sam. And thanks for engaging me in this dialogue.
There is something about the notion that the absence of language that places a limit on the Executive’s discretion means that his discretion is not limited that just doesn’t sit right with me.
Take a look at the County Charter, part 1.50…
If the Executive has the legal authority to keep the seat vacant until the next election, isn’t that pretty much giving him the authority to weaken the Council? For most of a year?
If the Executive kept the citizens of District 1 under-represented for most of a year, is he overextending his authority?
“rather open-ended” understates it nicely.
I share your confidence that Pete Kremen would not chose to take such an action. But I’m not talking about Pete Kremen, I’m talking about the office of County Executive.
I don’t know who the next five Executives will be, and neither does anyone else. If even one future Executive lacks Pete Kremen’s ability to exercise political restraint, it might be a good idea to set a proper precedent now.
Am I still making a moot point?
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Apex, I appreciate the chat. Unfortunately, what I’ve said so far is about all I can say, because that’s all I know. I don’t really have an opinion on it, I’m just trying to relay what I know to be true of the thought processes over there with county attorneys and the executive office. And, like I said, barring a legal challenge of some kind, that’s how it is.
That doesn’t necessarily sound the best, but that’s all I’ve got. And that’s often how it works, of course. It’s the same way Kremen’s salary issue turned out. The council was told they couldn’t repeal the large increase, they did anyway. Barring a legal challenge from a citizen or the executive’s office, that’s just how it was, even if the council was told they weren’t allowed to by county attorneys.
But I understand your point about certain precedent or even legislative clarification. That’s up to the political leaders of the county if they want to better define their process.
However, as a selfish journalist, I must say that the way it went down is really a treat for me because it’s so fun to write these stories and even sit through the meetings. Not that I don’t appreciate the effort Seth put into his rules of procedure for the selection, but I was unclear if they were picking a County Council member or playing Candyland. Maybe Risk?
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Oh, no doubt about it… this is excellent political theater.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Apex - I also noticed over at Elisabeth Britt’s blog, Latte Republic, you have expanded the discussion there. And you say this:
I don’t know if you are, but I don’t want you to think that I’m at all implying this whatsoever. I just cover these things. What I was saying is what the county attorneys have said and, as with anything like this, barring some type of court case, that’s how it’ll because (because someone would have to challenge the executive’s time frame for not making the appointment and that would leave it to the courts to decide).
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I know what you say to be true, Sam.
As a reporter you were clearly reporting your understanding of the county attorney’s interpretation. I felt that you made that perfectly clear in your words and saw no need to “improve” on them.
As the Herald political reporter, you clearly qualify as a credible source of what the conventional wisdom is on political matters like this.
And you are again confirming that this is how it is.
I personally think it is B.S. on an industrial scale, but that is clearly my opinion.
You were not offering an opinion, just the state of things as they are.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I think it was simple kindness of Bob to resign and the council to not decide. It has kept all of us local politicos amply entertained during this post-campaign lull.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 PM
we aren’t just amply entertained. We are also entertainingly amped.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Cool, Apex, I just didn’t want it to seem like I was trying to argue with you. I wasn’t at all and I enjoyed the dialogue and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts both here and at LR.