Thanks for the charter... but | Letters
March 20, 2012 · Updated 3:14 PM
Charlie Bodenstab is misinformed and his comments are unfair.
(“Fair, objective... I think not”, March 14, Journal, pg. 6)
I am thankful that we have a Home Rule charter. I am proud that my signature is on the original charter document. Check the record. I voted to approve the final version even though I disagreed with some of the experimental components of it.
As a freeholder I argued that voting for only one out of six council members would not give the people very good representation. I didn’t believe that the concept of separation of power, with a non-interference clause, would work.
I argued that we would be the only county on the planet to try these things. I guess my opinions have not changed after six years of watching the charter play out.
Charlie, because we disagreed on some issues doesn’t mean I “despise” the charter. I agree that I am not neutral. Nobody is. Do you truly believe that the Freeholders got it perfect on the first try? Really?
Rescinding the charter or trying to improve it was the logical starting point of the CRC process. I am happy the CRC has chosen to attempt to fix the problems that many people working under this government structure have brought to our attention.
After six years of watching the charter in action, my opinion is that it is an expensive experiment. Some things don’t work very well but some things do.
The voters will decide if the changes put forward by the hardworking members of the CRC will improve Home Rule or not.
Gordy Petersen/San Juan Island
— Editor’s note: Gordy Petersen is chairman of the Charter Review Commission