Better leadership? 'Yes' on Propositions 1-3 | As I See It
October 31, 2012 · 11:31 AM
By Harry See/San Juan Island
I think everyone is missing an important point in the controversy over the charter. The charter is a good idea only if the elected officials charged with implementing it adhere to it.
It has not worked out as planned, by the freeholders, which is why they insisted on a review after five years as a safeguard. Will the proposed amendments be better, I think so, but only, if we the voters take the time to truly understand that we need leadership that represents us all, unbiased, for the fiscal and environmental good of us all.
When I hear people say, “How would you like to be run by Lopez or Orcas” I cringe at the mentality. People talk a lot about power but not about our collective good.
I see a lot of information against the charter that is inaccurate and driven by a minority with a big voice and advertising budget. It has even come down to being vindictive and misuse of political influence.
I have heard a lot lately of a recurring theme from county and previous county workers: “No good deed goes unpunished.” It seems to be the theme of the lower echelon of our administration.
We need leadership that is unbound by self-interest, personal power and considers the social well-being of our community. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the voters.
Amendment 1: We are a community that is fractured by the unbalance politically. I question why SJI has 50 percent of the council under the 6-member deal. I live on SJI and I believe this is an unfair equation for the rest of the county. I like the idea of voting for all of my government not just 1/6
Amendment 2: The council hires the administrator. To believe that there is no influence there is a misconception. I believe a manager can efficiently run the budget and make our government responsible for that person’s action. They have conveniently meddled in this and then washed their hands of responsibility for it.
Amendment 3: Yes, it is more difficult to be candid in an open public forum; however, when three have been meeting on important issues without public viewing it denies the public due process. The current council continues to manipulate the sub-committee rules. Make it a law they cannot break.