Last year, attorney Lesa Starkenburg-Kroontje was awarded a $40,000 contract to represent Whatcom County in a Growth Management Hearings Board appeal of its rural element Comprehensive Plan changes.  Ms Starkenberg represented private clients during this process, leading to concerns that there was a conflict of interest. How could Ms Starkenberg render impartial advice to the County on GMA compliance when she had actively participated in this process as a pro-growth advocate? The answer is that she could not.

Hopefully, after last night, this is a lesson that even the County Council now understands.  Ms Starkenberg appeared at the evening County Council meeting on behalf of clients in two separate cases involving Mineral Resource Land (MRL) overlay zones.  This issue requires County Comprehensive Plan amendments and impacts County GMA compliance.  In other words, both immediately before and immediately after Ms Starkenberg represented the County, she appeared before the County Council advocating for clients on similar compliance matters.

In the first case, her client, Nor'west Gravel, was attempting to force a MRL on the South Fork of the Nooksack near Acme, over the protests of the local community. There was clear evidence that this would have harmful impacts to water and forest resources, fish and wildlife, and the quality of life for residents. 

It was revealed that earlier in the day, Ms Starkenberg had demanded that two Council members, Mr. Kremen and Mr. Mann, (who were only recently her clients) recuse themselves.  Mr. Kremen stated that Ms Starkenberg attempted to entrap him by requesting private meetings and then trying to use the discussion during the meetings as the basis for a recusal request.  He chose not to recuse himself.  Mr. Mann, without much discussion, chose to recuse himself.  Despite these draconian tactics, Ms Starkenberg's client did not prevail. 

In her second case, Ms Starkenberg's clients wanted to remove a MRL overlay zone to increase developable lots on prime agricultural land.  As Ms Starkenberg is aware from her County representation, the Hearings Board determined that the County must reduce its rural residential growth to become GMA compliant.  Ms Starkenberg was advocating for a result that she knew would increase the County’s non-compliance.  And in case she forgot, attorney Jean Melious, who successfully represented several residents (including myself) during the rural element appeal, reminded Ms Starkenberg, and the County Council, of this fact.  Signaling that they were not finished wasting our money on needless GMA compliance lawsuits, the Council voted in favor of Ms Starkenberg’s client.

I can think of no stronger example of why conflict of interest laws must be strictly applied in the future.  Perhaps Ms Starkenberg does not understand what a conflict of interest entails, but I certainly hope that our Council will now consider themselves enlightened.