As always your thoughts are insightful and candid.

We forget that the voting process is really a job interview, and that we have to be hard nosed about our choices, or we are sure to get poor performance from our government.

I was able to meet many of these candidates, and here are my reflections.

Kathy Kershner is a quality person, and we would be well served to see her in our local government. Unfortunately she is running against Dan McShane who brings so much to government. Either vote is a dam shame, we need both of these fine people.

Next, it is clear to me that we have focused too much on the individuals, while forgetting that these folks are all part of a team. We forget to ask what the team is missing, and look for candidates that have specific skills to strengthen these teams, which we call councils.

In this regard, it is clear that folks in the county do not feel their interests are adequately represented. As one who has lived both a urban and rural lifestyle, I think the county folks have a valid point on some issues.

Any legitimate cultural or political or economic group that feels disenfranchised creates animosity, and government bogs down as it struggles for solutions which address a wide variety of our communities challenges.

Too many Bellingham burbites on County Council, is not helpful.

Your previous post illustrates the Machievellian process that has taken hold of our political process and produces a less effective government as a result.

I for one would like to see a discussion on how to make our local politics more effective at producing good representation, better solutions, and a more interesting and concise method of making these important hiring decisions that we call elections.

We can produce our own political rules and culture. As Washington DC disintegrates into the special interest cesspool, we do not need to follow, and should not.

A campaign process which tells how candidates think, is interesting enough to engage the voters, produces candidates with truly open minds, candidates with the intellect to understand complex issues, and above all have what the Founding Fathers called “virtue”, which is simply the ability to ALWAYS represent the broad citizens interests.

Too often we have people who will not run, but would be spectacular candidates, or candidates who have a closed mind, or candidates who represent narrow groups when they are supposed to represent all of us, regardless of ideology.

Sadly today in my view our politics does not reflect the citizen, but special interests, and the bumper sticker, yard sign, and mailings simplistic slogans only serve to enhance the special interest money’s corrosive role.

I for one am more interested in seeing how a candidate thinks and reasons their way through the challenges facing us.

Too often today the demonization prevails, which only serves the parties, and not the citizens. Both parties use these techniques, but maybe it is time that we as voters simply said no to these techniques.

Nothing turns off enticing good people from entering the governing process than these negative hit pieces.

There are candidates that have in my view bad ideas for our community, but I have yet to meet a bad person.

As a discussion starter, I would like to see a round of public debates between the candidates on the larger issues which we face. I would like to see it televised repeatedly locally. This carrot would allow anyone to win election without major funding issues.

Removing parties from “control” of the candidates will go a long ways towards getting us, good government.

Even, God forbid, an independent candidate.

I suspect that if properly done, we would see greater voter participation, as folks actually see the whites of the candidates eyes, and see them think on their feet. People with mean and vindictive streaks, stand out like a sore thumb during vigorous debates.

Nothing kills conciliation and compromise than a mean streak, except maybe the inability to admit errors early and readjust.

These debates could start during the primaries, since once you have debated a subject, you shouldn’t need to re-debate it during the General.

Reinventing the political process has the potential to bring us better government, that far exceeds a single candidates races next month.

I would be interested in hearing the ideas for improving our local political process, with a realignment towards serving us, rather than the parties or individuals.

Ideas? Goals?

Doug,

Every time I read one of your comments, I become even more impressed with your effective problem-solving ability, not to mention your communication skills.  I am certain that anyone who has met you, as I have, feels the same way.  As always, thanks for taking time to add your input to the mix.  Although it?s a shame you won?t be serving as our next Port Commissioner, I hope elected officials will consult you to help address ? and really solve - the substantial problems we have.

Regarding ideas for improving the local political process, without an ?enforceable? truce between the parties, it will become even more difficult to attract highly qualified candidates.  Unless you have an unquenchable thirst for power, who needs to put up with all that ?hit-piece? and ?black ops? crap?  Even financing a local race is becoming too much of a challenge.  By necessity, successful candidates become molded into power-and-money-seeking ghosts of their former selves.  Is it even possible to make it through an election with your integrity and values intact?

Doug, thanks again for your time and insights.

Many of the reasons Doug just listed are why I got involved in politics in the first place. On one level, it is incredibly bizarre that our system for hiring people for a job (running our government)tests a set of skills that are completely different from those needed.

It was as if you sat down for a job interview to become a firefighter, and they asked you to play a Solo on the Tuba. The skills required for running for office are often not even close to what is required to be a good public servant.

Hence why I got involved. I want to develop those skills for running for office, so when good people that truly know what they are doing want to be public officials, they don’t need to develop a whole other skill set, they just need to hire me.

That’s what really motivates me to get involved. Providing that necessary tool to get good people in office.

And I would never use “Black Ops”, because that’s just dumb.

The easiest way to take the politics of special interest out of local elections (and state) is through public campaign financing.  Each candidate gets the same amount of money and then they can spend time on the issues and the people and not bowling for cash.  Frankly, our political scene is going to continue to disintegrate until we publicly finance campaigns.  As it stands now, a person has to have tremendous support to either the Democrat or Republican party because that is who has access to most of the money.  It is also very demotivating for a person to run for office knowing that they have to raise $40,000 to even be competitive (and then we criticize them when they take money from certain people and organizations).  The problem is not the people running (or even the political parties), it is the system that requires a certain course of action to be successful.  Change the system, change the results.

I also should comment on Doug K.‘s response as well.  I live and associate with many people out in the county.  Since I ran 4 years ago for the County Council I have seen a lot of pent up frustration in a lot of the rural residents that is coming to a head in this election.  It is not a surprise that Michelle, Bill, Kathy, and Mary Beth have raised a lot of money.  There are a lot of people outside of Bellingham that feel that their voices are not heard.  Maybe it is a perception and not reality (but perception is reality), but Doug makes an important point that right now the county council is dominated by urban livers who talk about environmental protection and agriculture, but really do not fully grasp the issues.  It is one thing to say you understand farming and are supportive of the farmers, it is another to actually be a farmer and interact with them on a regular basis (something most of the council has never really done).

The problem we have right now on the county council is groupthink (actually it is the number one problem at the state and national level as well).  We have a lot of good council people that all think the same, interact with the same people, and are dismissive of anyone that may have an alternative point of view (Sam C., BIA, Realtors)).  Groupthink does not make for good public policy and as I tell my students every quarter, the easiest way to eliminate group think is to diversify who you are including in the discussion and encourage alternative voices. 

Whether you think Laurie, Dan, Ken, and Carl are the best candidates or not, I do not think they adequately represent the diversity in the county.  We would be much better served if the council represented the diversity of the county and we eliminated the groupthink that has seized the county council.  I think it would also go a long way to normalize the relationship between the environmental crowd in Bellingham and the property rights crowd in the rural county.

Larry and Riley,

Thanks for your kind comments.

It seems to me that we(voters) have approached this hiring/electing decision from an irrational approach. We are defining what we want for candidate qualifications, after we have purchased the horse.

I would think that we could come up with an objective list of qualifications, independent of the candidates, and this list of skills required would endure through multiple elections. Most organizations hire this way, I don’t understand why we do not.

I suspect that this hiring criteria is being outsourced by neglect to the parties.

Oddly, in this vein I was thinking of the mismatching of skills and the needs of the community, and I came upon the epiphany that the greatest good that candidate McShane could do for our community today, is to use his substantial and unique skill, to bring forth a comprehensive and broadly supported clean up on the Waterfront.

This is a big money issue, if it expensively done, or worse screwed up. Our economy needs this to proceed, and geology is the appropriate discipline to apply to this problem.

A communities needs do change, but this is one area where Dan’s skill might be of the most value to the community, today.

If he could unravel this Gordian knot successfully with all parties reasonably satisfied, I would vote to make him King for a year. (One year term limits on all Kings)

Just an illustration of rationally reaching out during the hiring process to obtain great human resources when, and where, WE need them the most.

Providing a few hours of free television time to all candidates would trump all the bumper stickers that special interests could provide. Special interests simply could not afford to counter this television time.

Stream it on the internet, and you might just get people excited to watch the candidates compete on the issues.

There could be some great cutting and pasting that could provide cliff notes for the voters on specific issues.

How could any party counter a great performance by a candidate, seen by all.

A bumper sticker which says “I’m not as bad as I looked on TV”, simply will not get a candidate elected. Restricting the amount that candidates could legally raise locally, and could be used in conjunction to produce a comprehensive solution.

Money is not producing better candidates.

One of the keys to this would be the integrity of the organization moderating these debates. If this organization was either not competent, boring, failed to speak to the peoples’ needs to understand and comprehend, or biased, the project would fail.

We already pay for the TV station and some of the programming just does not rise to the level of importance that hiring good elected leaders does. It’s all about priorities.

I suspect that if we paid more attention to the hiring process of candidates, we would have to pay less time monitoring government.

It all starts with the hiring process, and getting voters to pay attention.

Make it easy, comprehensive, and fair to the citizens needs, not the candidates needs.

Hire right. Get good government.

The grand experiment that our Founding Fathers invented with has changed over time, and if we apply ourselves, I firmly believe that we can make it better.

We do not have to stay stuck in the mud, locally.

The 6th Ward is a tough choice.  Michael has worked very hard over the last couple years to be involved and informed on a wide range of local issues.  I usually vote for whoever seems to have composed the most comprehensive policy framework. But not this time.

Catherine has been involved, too, but on a narrower range of issues.  Both candidates are plenty smart. She will be a fast learner. This time I’ll be voting for Catherine Chambers because of Michael’s stand on landlord licensing.

I’m not in the landlording business, and I know there are problems, but licensing implies inspection, monitoring and enforcement. This has been shown to eliminate the most affordable units. Until we have better housing policies and the courage to issue building permits to achieve the mix of housing the community’s economy requires, we can’t afford to wipe out the bottom of our housing market.

Ultimately, these efforts rely on a squad of sneak-and-peek goons wandering around neighborhoods, fielding anonymous complaints, videotaping citizens and enforcing codes. That pits neighbor against neighbor and drives a stake into the heart of any progress toward community. Complaints of this nature should not be anonymous.  They should focus on the nuisances affecting neighbors, not on what people are doing in the privacy of their homes. Neighborhood Associations should be the facilitators of such conflicts, with real people, with real names and faces, meeting to identify real issues. I don’t care how many unrelated people live in a house so long as they conduct their affairs consistent with neighborhood values.

We, in Happy Valley, have had good if not complete success simply working with the University, property management companies and the actual tenants.  It’s not that hard.  It’s mainly about meeting up and apprising newcomers that they are living in a community with some expectations. That’s pretty easy, and they usually get it.

I’ll also be voting for Seth.  Yes, he seems a bit fuzzy sometimes, but I believe that issues from circumspection rather than laziness or confusion. Circumspection is a good thing on the Council and I know I can trust Seth to vote acceptably over 80% of the time.  That’s more than I can expect from Orphalee.

I was a little disappointed to read his comment in the Cascadia Weekly to the effect that Chuckanut Ridge was “legally rezoned” to support the level of development proposed.  That’s not true and he should know better.  It was rezoned, but not legally.

Tip, I’m sorry that I did not make my position clear on landlord licensing.  You wrote:

“That pits neighbor against neighbor and drives a stake into the heart of any progress toward community. Complaints of this nature should not be anonymous.  They should focus on the nuisances affecting neighbors, not on what people are doing in the privacy of their homes.”

Licensing would be a funding mechanism precisely so that nuisance problems would be investigated and enforced by the City, not by neighbors.  This would make it so that it is not neighbor against neighbor, which is what we have now.  We are talking about trained civil employees of the Police Department following up on parking problems, noise and litter problems, and unsafe living conditions and fire code violations that threaten both tenants and neighbors.

Licensing is common in many cities across the country, particularly in “college towns” and any where that rentals are a high percentage of residents.  In Bellingham, half of all residents are renters.  The vast majority of renters and landlords are good citizens,  Unfortunately, based on what I am hearing from voters, the problem minority is creating a problem that requires a public response.

Sorry to have lost your vote over a misunderstanding.

I agree with most of your recommendations John, except I will be voting for Michael Lilliquist and Seth Fleetwood.

Seth Fleetwood’s voting record is well known.

My primary reasons for supporting Michael Lilliquist are:
1) He’s extremely intelligent.
2) As a steering committee member of Futurewise Whatcom, Michael has an excellent understanding of growth and land use issues.
3) From his service on the Watershed Advisory Board and the Lake Whatcom Technical Review Task Force, he has an excellent understanding of Lake Whatcom and other water issues.
4) Michael understands that we need to be rebuilding community resilience now for a future that is likely to have fewer energy resources available.

To me, the above are the most important issues our local community is facing, and I believe Michael Lilliquist is needed on our city council now.

Hello everyone,

Here are some corresponding reasons to vote for Catherine Chambers:
1) She is smart and capable having coordinated numerous events (International Women’s Day), programs (Baby Food Grinders at the Food Bank) and organizations.

2) She has a firm grasp both on the scientific aspect of how to clean up Lake Whatcom and the Waterfront, but also on the more intangibles such as public feeling about the issues.

3) She has over 30 years of experience working for community service organizations that deal with poverty, hunger, domestic violence and mental illness. She has a great grasp on the human services the city provides and what needs keeping and what needs cutting.

4) She has the right perspective on zoning, and Landlord leasing. She says we need to bring both parties to the table and hammer out a solution that will not be more useless government meddling. Something practical. Catherine brings her experience as a consensus builder, and good practical sensibilities to the council.

I would like to know the source and the logic of Tip?s contention that the licensing rentals eliminates affordable units.  In Bellingham, there is a lack of affordable units because the city has done little to create them.  Instead the city allows the rental market to set its own rules to the detriment of the neighborhoods whose character the city is supposed to protect.  That results in groups of young wage earners and students renting houses to lower per capita costs for themselves while driving the rental price of these houses to a point that is unaffordable to single families of modest means. 

Referring to enforcement personnel as ?sneak and peek goons? grossly mis-characterizes the reality of enforcement of codes. Enforcement “goons” inspect the kitchens in restaurants where you eat and the hospitals and clinics where you seek medical care.  Other cities seem to do enforcement without violating anyone’s rights.  I have spoken to several individuals in charge of such enforcement in cities (Pasco, for example) that have rental licensing and these jurisdictions seem to have no problem with enforcement. 

Piling 5, 6 or 7 people in a single family house distorts the character of the neighborhood not to mention the result when you find 3-4 homes of this type on the same block.  It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy of their own homes.  That is a red herring argument of the first order.

Tip and others have repeatedly suggested that by enforcing nuisance codes you can somehow undo the effects of non-enforcement of zoning codes.  This makes no sense and perpetuates the unregulated infill by illegal rooming houses.  One might also think of the question of the health and welfare of renters in an uncontrolled and unregulated rental market which not many in the city seem to care a whit about, Tip apparently included.  Nobody has a clue as to the condition of the thousands of rental houses throughout the city.  That is a disaster waiting to happen. 

As for anonymous complaints, they are not accepted with respect to code enforcement violations to Planning or to the PD on illegal rooming houses or other violations.  The complainant must identify herself but the identity is kept confidential unless the case goes to court or the complainant agrees to be identified from the outset.  This is based on RCW 42.56.240 (2).  (check it out here:  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.240)

Others have said that there are only a small number of problem rentals but nobody knows that and we won’t get a handle on it until such time as there are inspections.  And what if these rentals are in YOUR neighborhood. Then what is your life like as a homeowner?  This is what many do not get.  If Tip enjoys baby-sitting these renters and mollycoddling the landlords, fine but don’t push that on everyone else.  As a homeowner from the Whatcom Falls area said to me after years of doing exactly that which Tip suggests, “I am tired of training these puppies.”

The rental association will also say the numbers are small so don’t “punish” everyone.  That is nonsense when anyone can see that the association has done bupkis to reign in these landlords.  The only time you hear from the association is the moment someone proposes licensing and then the howling begins.  What have the landlords done since the 2004 Cruise Terminal debacle to shut down scofflaw landlords?  Nada, zilch, zero. This grand assembly was to have been the ?sit down and talk? that everyone touted and now touts, yet again, as being the solution.  Ready.  Aim.  Aim.  Aim.  Aim?