Wednesday night, God put on a good performance with a celestial ballet called a lunar eclipse.
My son Shayne jumped on the trampoline and I stood on the ground next to him. We watched the moon get covered by the earth's red shadow, and then appear again as if the sky had a wide toothy smile. Shayne and I talked about the universe, the stars, and even the nature of God.
I remember a night when I was close to Shayne's age. My dad, my brother and I were lying on a dock in Key West Florida late in the night. We were watching a lunar eclipse and talking about the same things that Shayne and I were talking about.
Perhaps God performs this celestial ballet so that fathers and sons can talk about the universe, and become closer to each other, and as a result, closer to God.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
HB 2601
I understand that many folks dislike Eyman's petitions, but let's not take our anger out on the state initiative process. HB 2601 makes it harder to put an initiative on the ballot, and gives us voters less choices. Tim Eyeman is not the only one who uses the initiative process to accomplish government reform. The initiative process has been used to improve the pay and benefits of our teachers and public safety personel, it's been used to protect animals, and it's helped protect our environment. Restricting initiatives is not the answer to Tim Eyman.
The courts have been restricting local initiatives for years. Here is an article I wrote on some bad court decisions regarding the local initiative process:
Should your city council have the power to block initiative petitions it doesn’t approve of? Should your city council have the ability to sue you for signing or gathering signatures for an initiative petition?
I say no. But sadly, our courts say yes.
In Edmonds, citizens must gather 4000+ signatures and have their petition certified by the county auditor. The law then states the city council must schedule an election or pass the initiative as an ordinance.
But increasingly, courts have given city council’s more ways of circumventing the initiative process. Imagine working hard for months walking door-to-door gathering 4000 signatures only to have your city council refuse to act on the petition: no election, no ordinance. Or imagine having the city council sue you to stop your initiative?
Just recently, the state supreme court sided with the city of Sequim (5-4) in their lawsuit against one of their own citizens. (City of Sequim v. Paul Malkasian). The citizen was only guilty of gathering enough signatures to get his petition certified. In agreeing with Seqim’s city council, the supreme court stated that the law gave the “city council” the authority to levy taxes, not the “city itself.” (What’s that mean, I still don’t know). Basically, it’s a legal technicality, and a very convenient one, that has allowed courts and city councils to block citizen sponsored initiatives. It even gives city council’s the power to harass citizens by suing those who sign petitions and gather signatures.
Judge Richard Sanders in his dissenting opinion summed up the case: “Let us begin with a simple truth. Mr. Malkasian did not bring on this litigation but has been targeted, and pummeled, by the city of Sequim for nearly a decade with all the taxpayer resources the city could bring to bear against this hapless private citizen.”
The Supreme Court has essentially given city councils absolute authority over many issues that we hold dear. In another case, King County is trying to block an initiative affecting land-use code. Under the “city council” versus “the city itself” argument, initiative petitions on height limits, PRD’s, setbacks, and even our own Comprehensive plan could be rejected by your city council with the okay of our courts. And the gatherers of signatures can be sued and incur huge legal expenses.
Sadly, it wasn’t just a decade ago that the city council of Edmonds took legal action against signers of an initiative petition. Fortunately, the voters rose up at the next election and removed one the offending incumbents. In fact, none of the council members who made that decision are currently on the council.
Which now brings me to my final point…
Courts won’t protect you, but you still can. As a citizen, you should make it clear to your council members, that you expect them to respect the initiative process and those who volunteer their time to gather signatures. You should make it clear that you will not vote for council members who sue petitioners or block initiative petitions.
One day, you may have a disagreement with your council and want to gather signatures. Thanks to our courts, you now risk legal action by doing so. But please, don’t be afraid. Your council should fear you, you should not fear them. Stand up to your council, use the initiative process, and keep gathering signatures.
-Dave Orvis
Edmonds City Council Member
Position 7.
The courts have been restricting local initiatives for years. Here is an article I wrote on some bad court decisions regarding the local initiative process:
Should your city council have the power to block initiative petitions it doesn’t approve of? Should your city council have the ability to sue you for signing or gathering signatures for an initiative petition?
I say no. But sadly, our courts say yes.
In Edmonds, citizens must gather 4000+ signatures and have their petition certified by the county auditor. The law then states the city council must schedule an election or pass the initiative as an ordinance.
But increasingly, courts have given city council’s more ways of circumventing the initiative process. Imagine working hard for months walking door-to-door gathering 4000 signatures only to have your city council refuse to act on the petition: no election, no ordinance. Or imagine having the city council sue you to stop your initiative?
Just recently, the state supreme court sided with the city of Sequim (5-4) in their lawsuit against one of their own citizens. (City of Sequim v. Paul Malkasian). The citizen was only guilty of gathering enough signatures to get his petition certified. In agreeing with Seqim’s city council, the supreme court stated that the law gave the “city council” the authority to levy taxes, not the “city itself.” (What’s that mean, I still don’t know). Basically, it’s a legal technicality, and a very convenient one, that has allowed courts and city councils to block citizen sponsored initiatives. It even gives city council’s the power to harass citizens by suing those who sign petitions and gather signatures.
Judge Richard Sanders in his dissenting opinion summed up the case: “Let us begin with a simple truth. Mr. Malkasian did not bring on this litigation but has been targeted, and pummeled, by the city of Sequim for nearly a decade with all the taxpayer resources the city could bring to bear against this hapless private citizen.”
The Supreme Court has essentially given city councils absolute authority over many issues that we hold dear. In another case, King County is trying to block an initiative affecting land-use code. Under the “city council” versus “the city itself” argument, initiative petitions on height limits, PRD’s, setbacks, and even our own Comprehensive plan could be rejected by your city council with the okay of our courts. And the gatherers of signatures can be sued and incur huge legal expenses.
Sadly, it wasn’t just a decade ago that the city council of Edmonds took legal action against signers of an initiative petition. Fortunately, the voters rose up at the next election and removed one the offending incumbents. In fact, none of the council members who made that decision are currently on the council.
Which now brings me to my final point…
Courts won’t protect you, but you still can. As a citizen, you should make it clear to your council members, that you expect them to respect the initiative process and those who volunteer their time to gather signatures. You should make it clear that you will not vote for council members who sue petitioners or block initiative petitions.
One day, you may have a disagreement with your council and want to gather signatures. Thanks to our courts, you now risk legal action by doing so. But please, don’t be afraid. Your council should fear you, you should not fear them. Stand up to your council, use the initiative process, and keep gathering signatures.
-Dave Orvis
Edmonds City Council Member
Position 7.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Health District Report
Today, I served as Edmonds representative to the Health District.
Last year, the 2006-2007 legislature approved more funds for Health Districts. Today, we budgeted those new funds, hiring new health care workers to provide better control for communicable diseases. According, to Charlene Shambach, Director of Community Health, “The strategies to be promoted will include an onsite school-based clinic to deliver the vaccines, health care provider vaccine recall to encourage and remind families to obtain the immunizations, and vaccine education to parents, schools, and health care provider.”
Our next action item was approval of a program where employees of the Snohomish County District will receive extra pay for being fluent in another language. The Health District spends a great deal of money on translators, which they must do in order to deliver good health services and avoid legal liability. With demographics rapidly changing in Snohomish County, giving employees an incentive to learn an extra language can save money for the health district in the long run.
Last year, the 2006-2007 legislature approved more funds for Health Districts. Today, we budgeted those new funds, hiring new health care workers to provide better control for communicable diseases. According, to Charlene Shambach, Director of Community Health, “The strategies to be promoted will include an onsite school-based clinic to deliver the vaccines, health care provider vaccine recall to encourage and remind families to obtain the immunizations, and vaccine education to parents, schools, and health care provider.”
Our next action item was approval of a program where employees of the Snohomish County District will receive extra pay for being fluent in another language. The Health District spends a great deal of money on translators, which they must do in order to deliver good health services and avoid legal liability. With demographics rapidly changing in Snohomish County, giving employees an incentive to learn an extra language can save money for the health district in the long run.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Parties, Presidents, and Edmonds.
Some folks want to know who my choice is for President of the United States?
I loathe the idea of talking party politics, because party politics have nothing to do with the city council. City council positions are non-partisan seats, and for a very good reason. Folks who agree on national politics, don't necessarily agree on local politics.
Looking at how certain issues divide the council, one can see that we seldom split along party lines. You can find Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the building height issue. The same holds true when we voted on the size of the park in South Edmonds. Just recently, the council refused to confirm a planning board nomination. The two council members who approved of the Mayor's nomination consisted of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat. The two members who were the most vocal opponents of the nomination also lean in opposite directions on party choices.
When I was circulating petitions to stop casinos in Edmonds, I soon learned that the gambling issue split both parties. Free market Republicans supported casinos, while social conservatives opposed them. Big government Democrats like casinos (more specifically they like the tax revenue from casinos), while working-poor Democrats despise casinos because they profit from those who can least afford it.
During my re-election, my opponent was endorsed by the Democrats, while I was endorsed by the Mainstream Republicans. Yet, some of my most vocal supporters were Democrats; while some of my opponent’s most vocal supporters were Republicans.
So you can see why I loathe talking party. I don't want to drive a wedge between myself and folks I want to ally with on local issues. I don’t want to be defined by my party leaning. I want myself to be defined by how I represent Edmonds.
But if you must know my presidential pick, here it is: I will be voting for John McCain. I don't always agree with him, but I do like that fact that he will buck the leadership of the Republican Party. Frankly, the leadership of the Republican Party could use some bucking.
So who do you support? There is a comment section under this blog entry. Give your candidate a plug, Democrat, or Republican, or whatever.
I loathe the idea of talking party politics, because party politics have nothing to do with the city council. City council positions are non-partisan seats, and for a very good reason. Folks who agree on national politics, don't necessarily agree on local politics.
Looking at how certain issues divide the council, one can see that we seldom split along party lines. You can find Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the building height issue. The same holds true when we voted on the size of the park in South Edmonds. Just recently, the council refused to confirm a planning board nomination. The two council members who approved of the Mayor's nomination consisted of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat. The two members who were the most vocal opponents of the nomination also lean in opposite directions on party choices.
When I was circulating petitions to stop casinos in Edmonds, I soon learned that the gambling issue split both parties. Free market Republicans supported casinos, while social conservatives opposed them. Big government Democrats like casinos (more specifically they like the tax revenue from casinos), while working-poor Democrats despise casinos because they profit from those who can least afford it.
During my re-election, my opponent was endorsed by the Democrats, while I was endorsed by the Mainstream Republicans. Yet, some of my most vocal supporters were Democrats; while some of my opponent’s most vocal supporters were Republicans.
So you can see why I loathe talking party. I don't want to drive a wedge between myself and folks I want to ally with on local issues. I don’t want to be defined by my party leaning. I want myself to be defined by how I represent Edmonds.
But if you must know my presidential pick, here it is: I will be voting for John McCain. I don't always agree with him, but I do like that fact that he will buck the leadership of the Republican Party. Frankly, the leadership of the Republican Party could use some bucking.
So who do you support? There is a comment section under this blog entry. Give your candidate a plug, Democrat, or Republican, or whatever.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Open Government (Update)
It doesn't look like the effort to tape executive sesssions in going very far at the state level (see the Herald's commentary) Also see my previous blog entry.
I am for taping Edmonds City Council executive sessions anyway. There is nothing that says we can't do this. The council should act to move forward with this important reform.
At the retreat, we also discussed televising Architectural Design Board meetings and Planning Board meetings, like we do council meetings. There is some expense involved, but I think it would be better for everyone for government to be as open as possible.
I am for taping Edmonds City Council executive sessions anyway. There is nothing that says we can't do this. The council should act to move forward with this important reform.
At the retreat, we also discussed televising Architectural Design Board meetings and Planning Board meetings, like we do council meetings. There is some expense involved, but I think it would be better for everyone for government to be as open as possible.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Disability Board
I attended this year’s first meeting of the disability board.
Long ago, police and firefighters would enroll in the LEOFF 1 retirement system, a system which required cities to fund their medical expenses for life.
The LEOFF 1 retirement system has since been replaced. City firefighters and police officers now participate in state retirement pools that are much better managed than LEOFF 1. However, the city is still obligated to the 30 plus LEOFF 1 retirees.
The disability board’s job is to review claims from LEOFF 1 retirees and make sure all “medically necessary” claims are paid. This includes the cost of insurance, expenses that are sometimes not covered by insurance, and the cost of nursing care, which can amount to thousands of dollars per month per individual.
The disability board has its own fund, but the fund has not been adequately financed by past councils. It’s essentially pay as you go out of the general fund. As LEOFF 1 retirees age, their medical expenses could potentially impose millions of dollars on the general fund. Expenses the city has no choice but to pay, by law.
The LEOFF 1 retirees, nor the current council and mayor, are at fault for this situation. Again, the fund to pay for all of this was not adequately managed by previous administrations. We essentially inherited the problem and we are obligated to solve it.
It’s essential for all council members to keep LEOFF 1 retirees in the back of their minds as they think about future budgets.
Long ago, police and firefighters would enroll in the LEOFF 1 retirement system, a system which required cities to fund their medical expenses for life.
The LEOFF 1 retirement system has since been replaced. City firefighters and police officers now participate in state retirement pools that are much better managed than LEOFF 1. However, the city is still obligated to the 30 plus LEOFF 1 retirees.
The disability board’s job is to review claims from LEOFF 1 retirees and make sure all “medically necessary” claims are paid. This includes the cost of insurance, expenses that are sometimes not covered by insurance, and the cost of nursing care, which can amount to thousands of dollars per month per individual.
The disability board has its own fund, but the fund has not been adequately financed by past councils. It’s essentially pay as you go out of the general fund. As LEOFF 1 retirees age, their medical expenses could potentially impose millions of dollars on the general fund. Expenses the city has no choice but to pay, by law.
The LEOFF 1 retirees, nor the current council and mayor, are at fault for this situation. Again, the fund to pay for all of this was not adequately managed by previous administrations. We essentially inherited the problem and we are obligated to solve it.
It’s essential for all council members to keep LEOFF 1 retirees in the back of their minds as they think about future budgets.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Bogus Land Sale (Pioneer Insurance v. Spokane County)
Imagine that you are living comfortably in your house, paying your mortgage, when you receive a letter from the state telling you to get off of THEIR property. Imagine being stuck with your mortgage and no property.
This happened for real. In 1979, Bradley Derr purchased a duplex in Spokane County. In 1981, the state told him that he didn’t own the land.
The state was right. The county had sold the state land in 1964 for back taxes. Of course, the state doesn’t have to pay taxes to the county, so the sale was bogus. In 1956, the state had acquired the land and clearly made notice of that to Spokane County. The state didn’t notice their land had been sold until 1981.
Fortunately for the Bradley Derr, he had acquired title insurance from Pioneer Insurance, who was now stuck with a large bill (the mortgage). Pioneer Insurance was not pleased and filed suit against Spokane County claiming negligence. The county had been informed that the land was state owned, and the county’s SNAFU had resulted in the sale.
Who won the suit? The county did.
I was stunned when I first read the decision. In fact, I am still stunned. The county sells land that they don’t own and shouldn’t collect taxes from, and they get off. No financial consequences. How do they do it?
Legally speaking, the county cannot be responsible for the titles for private land that they have to cease for back taxes. It should be the responsibility of those purchasing the title from the county to fully investigate the land. Usually land ceased for tax purposes comes with numerous problems, and some liens that have to be settled.
But that is not the case here. Here, Spokane County ceased land that they had no business ceasing. This land was sold wrongfully for back taxes. Spokane County made the error, and as a result Mr. Derr would later take out a mortgage and purchase land from someone who they believed owned the land, but in reality the state owned it.
Spokane County was shielded by a court created legal concept known as the “Public Duty Doctrine.” It immunizes all government agencies from most forms of accountability for mistakes. It has some exceptions. For example, if “mistakes” are made with malice or intent, but for the most part government gets off. There are many stories like this: Botched permits, bad building inspections, and in this case, a bogus land sale. These government screws ups cost folks big bucks, but the government gets off.
In my view, justice would have been served if the Spokane County had been required to purchase the land back at fair market value and return it the state.
While I am shocked at the behavior of the courts, I am more shocked at the behavior of the elected officials. There is nothing that requires us elected officials to buy into the “Public Duty Doctrine”. Spokane County council members could and should have intervened.
As an elected official, I believe government must be accountable for its mistakes; otherwise, government looses the trust and faith of the public it serves. The “public duty doctrine” can only breed distrust between government and the public if it continues to exist.
This happened for real. In 1979, Bradley Derr purchased a duplex in Spokane County. In 1981, the state told him that he didn’t own the land.
The state was right. The county had sold the state land in 1964 for back taxes. Of course, the state doesn’t have to pay taxes to the county, so the sale was bogus. In 1956, the state had acquired the land and clearly made notice of that to Spokane County. The state didn’t notice their land had been sold until 1981.
Fortunately for the Bradley Derr, he had acquired title insurance from Pioneer Insurance, who was now stuck with a large bill (the mortgage). Pioneer Insurance was not pleased and filed suit against Spokane County claiming negligence. The county had been informed that the land was state owned, and the county’s SNAFU had resulted in the sale.
Who won the suit? The county did.
I was stunned when I first read the decision. In fact, I am still stunned. The county sells land that they don’t own and shouldn’t collect taxes from, and they get off. No financial consequences. How do they do it?
Legally speaking, the county cannot be responsible for the titles for private land that they have to cease for back taxes. It should be the responsibility of those purchasing the title from the county to fully investigate the land. Usually land ceased for tax purposes comes with numerous problems, and some liens that have to be settled.
But that is not the case here. Here, Spokane County ceased land that they had no business ceasing. This land was sold wrongfully for back taxes. Spokane County made the error, and as a result Mr. Derr would later take out a mortgage and purchase land from someone who they believed owned the land, but in reality the state owned it.
Spokane County was shielded by a court created legal concept known as the “Public Duty Doctrine.” It immunizes all government agencies from most forms of accountability for mistakes. It has some exceptions. For example, if “mistakes” are made with malice or intent, but for the most part government gets off. There are many stories like this: Botched permits, bad building inspections, and in this case, a bogus land sale. These government screws ups cost folks big bucks, but the government gets off.
In my view, justice would have been served if the Spokane County had been required to purchase the land back at fair market value and return it the state.
While I am shocked at the behavior of the courts, I am more shocked at the behavior of the elected officials. There is nothing that requires us elected officials to buy into the “Public Duty Doctrine”. Spokane County council members could and should have intervened.
As an elected official, I believe government must be accountable for its mistakes; otherwise, government looses the trust and faith of the public it serves. The “public duty doctrine” can only breed distrust between government and the public if it continues to exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
