Yesterday, Point-Interface (don't shoot the messenger: they publish what they get) published four different messages from the Fire Commissioners informing us of their upcoming meeting(s)/meeting. There was one special meeting; then there was another special meeting; then the agenda for the first special meeting was changed somewhat; then one of the special meetings was cancelled and the agenda of one added to the agenda of the other. So I wouldn't rush to schedule next week's evening entertainment until they get themselves sorted out. But it makes one feel that there is some internal disagreement here. Mr. Meursing missed the last meeting so perhaps he is making up for that.
I am making some headway on understanding local commissions/Special Districts. There appear to be five of them here (Water (3 commissioners), Hospital (3 commissioners), Cemetery (3), Park and Recreation (5), and Fire (3). All but the Park Commissioners receive payment for meetings; the Park folk have traditionally turned it down. The state regs permit anyone holding a Commission position to turn it down, it would appear.
It also appears from the regs that the Commissioners can increase their numbers by proposing to do so, or the public can do it by petition, but in either case, the increased numbers must be put to the public for a vote. It also appears, with respect to Commissioner payments, that if a person sits on two District Boards at the same time, he/she may receive payment only from one of them. (RCW 52.14.00 [ A person holding office as commissioner for two or more special purpose districts shall receive only that per diem compensation authorized for one of his or her commissioner positions as compensation for attending an official meeting or conducting official services or duties while representing more than one of his or her districts. However, such commissioner may receive additional per diem compensation if approved by resolution of all boards of the affected commissions.] ) Mr. Meursing is both a Fire Commissioner and a Water Commissioner.
Sunday morning straightening out done.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Encouragement, of a Sort, I Guess
The Fire Commissioners' meeting last night: It was mostly comedy last night, so perhaps tragedy tonight. These meetings really are the closest we get to a legitimate theater company, I think.
I don't really know what to say: In some ways, it was like watching some kindergardeners on their first day trying to figure out how to do what the rest of us figured out a hundred years ago. Specifically, to conduct a meeting. We got an agenda, which was a good start, but we were missing Meursing (a phrase I thought I would probably never write, but it is meant only in the sense that he was not in attendance). And it was Mr. Wilcott's first meeting as a Commissioner and, although it was clear that he knew how meetings were supposed to work, it was not clear he had yet figured out how to make this particular kind of meeting work. I wish him good luck with this. And Mr. Riffle, in charge for the first time, seemed fairly flummoxed at various times. At one point, when he voted against his own motion, I couldn't tell whether he had changed his mind or didn't know what was being voted upon. Periodically, when something worked, all the way through introduction, motions, discussion, and calls for the vote which were then followed by an actual vote, I wanted to run up and say, cheerfully, in my best teacher voice, "Good Job!!!"
There were of course no documents that were available for the dozen or so attendees to look at while the topics were being discussed and largely tabled (same result but in a different spirit at the Community Advisory Committee). Perhaps next time we get documents, maybe even on the web in advance. People had written letters it was announced and if you wanted to see them, you had to make an official records request, but we did not know why we would want to see them, or why we wouldn't as far as that goes.) Someone had written a letter demanding back pay and that went to the lawyer (why?) but not to Mr. Wilcott. Do we want to see it? Could we see it if we wanted to? Who knows?
There was a financial report in which the month's expenditures were about $15,000, almost $5,000 of which went to the lawyer; last month he only got $2,000, so his situation is improving. There is an announcement that they are not going to repave the parking lot but just coat and stripe it. Etc.
Two resolutions were introduced: one to increase the number of Commissioners to five, and a second to have the Commissioners stop getting paid for attendance at the meetings, not least because they have had so many special meetings that they are way over budget for these payments. [I spent about an hour today with Google trying to locate the practices of the other Pt. Roberts Commissions but you would be lucky to be able to find the names of the Commissioners on the other Districts. So that research will require more personal attention. At the moment, the only thing I know for sure is that the Parks Dept. Commissioners DON'T accept any payment. And I think i know there is a Health District, a Cemetery District, a Water District, and a Parks District, in addition to the Fire District, but I know the names of only a few Commissioners of any of them.)
Now, those resolutions would have been worth discussing, but they were put off until there was 'A Committee of the Whole,' which would be when Meursing too was in attendance. Which leads one to believe that the two present Commissioners were split on their votes on this matter, although Mr. Riffle did not ever say anything in opposition. So, who knows? This did not cause me to want to say, "Good Job!"
Finally, the entire meeting almost collapsed on a proposal to increase the Chief's authority to buy things for the Fire Department. It didn't increase his total budget, just the amount he could spend on various items in a single month without getting Commissioner approval.
Now, I would expect that such a request would note the fact that the current policy is to allow such purchases up to the amount of $2,500/month, and the Chief was asking for an increase to $10,000/per month. Further, it would explain exactly why this four-fold increase was necessary. For example, experience in the previous 6 months where $2,500 was clearly inadequate and when it was difficult to locate the Commissioners for approval and approvals needed to given quickly. Or, perhaps, a survey of other Whatcom Fire Departments showing that Fire Chiefs routinely had such discretion at the $10,000 level. But there was nothing at all of that sort. Chief Carleton said he needed it and he didn't know how previous fire chiefs had done it because he hadn't been the fire chief here previously. (Although, Meursing said emphatically, several months ago, that Carleton's experience as the substitute fire chief when Kiniski was off being paramedic trained was a big reason for making him the new fire chief.)
In any case, there was no case made by anybody for this increase. The Lawyer had been consulted as to whether it was an out of line figure, but the lawyer is a lawyer, not a public policy expert, so I am confused about why you would want to be paying for that kind of advice.
There was a lot of excited discussion about this issue among the Commissioners, and among and with the attendees, even though there wasn't a comment period at this part of the agenda. At one point there was a motion to do what Carleton wanted; at another point the motion was amended, and then the amendment was withdrawn; later on, the Chair said the motion was dead, although I actually did not spot the moment of death. Eventually there was an attempt to make a deal with Carleton, asking him whether he would settle for $7,500. (NOT a Good Job! moment, definitely.)
At the end, the whole thing, the motion or the topic at least appeared to have survived its near death experience and was to be brought back next month when Meursing returns to provide a second vote, I guess. And the meeting was adjourned because there had already been enough public comment according to the Commissioners. Probably enough for me, too.
It's a learning process to run an open meeting, to run a meeting where discussions are open to public view. It's messy--nobody ever said transparency of public policy decisions was efficient or that the process was easy to understand or to conduct. However, I am hoping that what I was seeing was the beginning of that learning process. For a first step, Good Job!, I guess. Though I do see a very long road ahead. Another regular meeting in November, on Monday the 12th. Do come; there are seats available in all the first four rows!
I don't really know what to say: In some ways, it was like watching some kindergardeners on their first day trying to figure out how to do what the rest of us figured out a hundred years ago. Specifically, to conduct a meeting. We got an agenda, which was a good start, but we were missing Meursing (a phrase I thought I would probably never write, but it is meant only in the sense that he was not in attendance). And it was Mr. Wilcott's first meeting as a Commissioner and, although it was clear that he knew how meetings were supposed to work, it was not clear he had yet figured out how to make this particular kind of meeting work. I wish him good luck with this. And Mr. Riffle, in charge for the first time, seemed fairly flummoxed at various times. At one point, when he voted against his own motion, I couldn't tell whether he had changed his mind or didn't know what was being voted upon. Periodically, when something worked, all the way through introduction, motions, discussion, and calls for the vote which were then followed by an actual vote, I wanted to run up and say, cheerfully, in my best teacher voice, "Good Job!!!"
There were of course no documents that were available for the dozen or so attendees to look at while the topics were being discussed and largely tabled (same result but in a different spirit at the Community Advisory Committee). Perhaps next time we get documents, maybe even on the web in advance. People had written letters it was announced and if you wanted to see them, you had to make an official records request, but we did not know why we would want to see them, or why we wouldn't as far as that goes.) Someone had written a letter demanding back pay and that went to the lawyer (why?) but not to Mr. Wilcott. Do we want to see it? Could we see it if we wanted to? Who knows?
There was a financial report in which the month's expenditures were about $15,000, almost $5,000 of which went to the lawyer; last month he only got $2,000, so his situation is improving. There is an announcement that they are not going to repave the parking lot but just coat and stripe it. Etc.
Two resolutions were introduced: one to increase the number of Commissioners to five, and a second to have the Commissioners stop getting paid for attendance at the meetings, not least because they have had so many special meetings that they are way over budget for these payments. [I spent about an hour today with Google trying to locate the practices of the other Pt. Roberts Commissions but you would be lucky to be able to find the names of the Commissioners on the other Districts. So that research will require more personal attention. At the moment, the only thing I know for sure is that the Parks Dept. Commissioners DON'T accept any payment. And I think i know there is a Health District, a Cemetery District, a Water District, and a Parks District, in addition to the Fire District, but I know the names of only a few Commissioners of any of them.)
Now, those resolutions would have been worth discussing, but they were put off until there was 'A Committee of the Whole,' which would be when Meursing too was in attendance. Which leads one to believe that the two present Commissioners were split on their votes on this matter, although Mr. Riffle did not ever say anything in opposition. So, who knows? This did not cause me to want to say, "Good Job!"
Finally, the entire meeting almost collapsed on a proposal to increase the Chief's authority to buy things for the Fire Department. It didn't increase his total budget, just the amount he could spend on various items in a single month without getting Commissioner approval.
Now, I would expect that such a request would note the fact that the current policy is to allow such purchases up to the amount of $2,500/month, and the Chief was asking for an increase to $10,000/per month. Further, it would explain exactly why this four-fold increase was necessary. For example, experience in the previous 6 months where $2,500 was clearly inadequate and when it was difficult to locate the Commissioners for approval and approvals needed to given quickly. Or, perhaps, a survey of other Whatcom Fire Departments showing that Fire Chiefs routinely had such discretion at the $10,000 level. But there was nothing at all of that sort. Chief Carleton said he needed it and he didn't know how previous fire chiefs had done it because he hadn't been the fire chief here previously. (Although, Meursing said emphatically, several months ago, that Carleton's experience as the substitute fire chief when Kiniski was off being paramedic trained was a big reason for making him the new fire chief.)
In any case, there was no case made by anybody for this increase. The Lawyer had been consulted as to whether it was an out of line figure, but the lawyer is a lawyer, not a public policy expert, so I am confused about why you would want to be paying for that kind of advice.
There was a lot of excited discussion about this issue among the Commissioners, and among and with the attendees, even though there wasn't a comment period at this part of the agenda. At one point there was a motion to do what Carleton wanted; at another point the motion was amended, and then the amendment was withdrawn; later on, the Chair said the motion was dead, although I actually did not spot the moment of death. Eventually there was an attempt to make a deal with Carleton, asking him whether he would settle for $7,500. (NOT a Good Job! moment, definitely.)
At the end, the whole thing, the motion or the topic at least appeared to have survived its near death experience and was to be brought back next month when Meursing returns to provide a second vote, I guess. And the meeting was adjourned because there had already been enough public comment according to the Commissioners. Probably enough for me, too.
It's a learning process to run an open meeting, to run a meeting where discussions are open to public view. It's messy--nobody ever said transparency of public policy decisions was efficient or that the process was easy to understand or to conduct. However, I am hoping that what I was seeing was the beginning of that learning process. For a first step, Good Job!, I guess. Though I do see a very long road ahead. Another regular meeting in November, on Monday the 12th. Do come; there are seats available in all the first four rows!
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Meetings from Hell...
Is somebody putting something in the coffee? Is it terminal loopiness after a summer of excessive sun and insufficient rain? It's just one crazy meeting after another. Maybe it's just the universe's way of suggesting that meetings, democracy-style, just aren't the way to get anything done. It's certainly not a good sign of our ability to live together in any kind of cooperative manner.
Back in the spring, I think, folks from the County Council came up and advised us that we need to learn to work together. Fortunately, they were not at the meeting of the Community Advisory Committee last night to see how well that advice worked.
The meeting started off well with a quorum of 3 members present, an 'audience' of about a dozen, and a sizable agenda. Only then did it go wrong.
The first item was public parking at Maple Beach. Here we have a public beach with no public parking. Roosevelt, which would be a sensible place for parking is controlled by the Border Commission, including Canada and the U.S., and for all practical purposes by Homeland Security. They, you will not be surprised to hear, want nothing on that land including no cars. The County doesn't want any parking on Bayview (the main, waterfront street), and the local homeowners aren't crazy about your parking on their lawns which grow right up to the fairly narrow streets. So not crazy about it that many put stuff--driftwood, big rocks, signs-- in that area to keep you from parking on their lawns, leaving outlanders feeling like they're probably not supposed to be parking there, anyway.
But here's the kicker and the Chinese puzzle aspect: it is perfectly legal to park on their lawns because the County has an easement for parking. Which means that those rocks and signs and driftwood piles are illegal. But the County chooses not to enforce that illegality, leaving the place looking like it would be the parkers that are engaged in illegality. Although, the Sheriff's deputies will not ticket you if you DO park on those lawn edges because there is an easement for parking. Got it?
So, the 'solution' (which is not much of a solution) is to counsel people in cars to park wherever,however you might do that. Which does not necessarily please the people in Maple Beach who are of the opinion that there is no need of a solution because there is no problem.
I don't think this is likely to be a place where minds can come together on some compromise or anything. It's either a problem without a solution or a solution without a problem. Where's the common ground there? Nonetheless, voices were somewhat heated.
I was at this meeting because I wanted to offer to the Committee the possibility of its using some of its gas tax moneys/monies for a pocket park in front of the new library. The gas tax money, which increases every month and in the near future will hit a million dollars, can be used for only very limited purposes having to do with road improvements, roadway beautification, roadway signage, like that. There had been for some time consideration of a small park at the end of Gulf Rd, but that was proving difficult because of the specific property owners's concerns. It had occurred to me that if they moved that little imagined park up to the new library frontage, it would be a perfect place to have a pocket park with some overhead protection and seating and 24 hour a day wifi availability, which the library provides.
So I was on the agenda to present this idea, which had occurred to me only three days ago. Nevertheless, before I got to present my idea, the Committee's representative from the Voters' Association, got up and read a manifesto from the Board of Directors of the Voters' Association. This manifesto had been determined at a closed meeting of the Board held, apparently, hours earlier as it was dated October 9. The manifesto opposed my proposal, along with a bunch of other things they felt a sincere need to oppose. With regard to the pocket park which was the subject of my proposal, they stated that their opposition was based upon their belief that "until there is an actual need that would truly benefit the community we should not fund this project."
Needless to say, it's hard to imagine what "actual need" would satisfy them. I'm impressed, I guess, with their efficiency in opposing things that haven't even been officially proposed. It suggests an amazing commitment to opposing things, at least. Which would, of course, be in line with much of what voting is about in some segments of the population nowadays.
But, when there was some questioning of the relevance of opposing things that hadn't yet been proposed, as well as some other technical problems involving terms of office for the Committee, the aforementioned Representative from the voters stormed out and, with his back at the door, announced that he had not come there to have the Chairperson argue with him. I think his future in politics is limited. But what do I know?
Anyway, if you belong to the Voters' Association and you think a pocket park at the library might be a nice thing, you might mention it to the Board of Directors members. Unfortunately, I can't give you a link to their website because they don't seem to have one; and I can't give you an email address because their material in the most recent APB doesn't include any email contact, at least not that I could find. So you may have to wait until you run into them, whoever they may be other than Elizabeth Lanz (she signed the manifesto of opposition) and Dwayne Hunt (he presented it). I imagine there are more than two of them, but who knows?
Not clear that anybody left on the floor at the Community Advisory Committee Meeting had any ideas about anything by the end of it all.
Nevertheless! The Community Advisory Committee will meet again next month on November 13th at 7 p.m. It might be the best entertainment on the Point that week. On the other hand, we have the Fire Commissioners performing again tonight, 7 pm, at the Firehall on Benson. It's a horse race, as they say about politics.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Tail-less Raccoon
We haven't seen Uncle Charlie, the big, tail-less raccoon for many weeks. He doesn't do well in the tree-climbing department, alas. But he just walked by (it's more of a strange waddle, actually), stopped for a drink from the bird bath, and then moved out to the front of the house and the street. Of course, before I could get my hands on a camera. It's not enough to have the camera with you at all times when you leave the house; it's got to be there when you're in the house, too, nowadays with this non-stop raccoon trail that we're running. But if I'm going to do that, it's got to be a much smaller camera!
Saturday, October 6, 2012
On the Price of Gas
According to the L.A. Times, gas prices have suddenly shot up in California as a result of refinery shortages down there. Says the newspaper: "Friday's average price for a gallon of unleaded regular in California is $4.486 a gallon, which is by far the highest in the nation."
Obviously, the L.A. Times and whoever provides them with information, is not a regular visitor to Point Roberts... Although it's possible that the Times, like me, is not sure what is the exact factor to use in order to convert liter prices to gallon equivalents.
And why don't we ever get per gallon prices, anyway? Because then we would OF
COURSE know how much more we pay than those in ROTUS?
Today, at the Shell station, regular is listed at $1.249/liter. Which would, according to my converter, mean $4.73/gallon. Somewhat higher than Los Angeles' piddling $4.48/gallon, which is getting national news coverage and all that. Poor babes!
Obviously, the L.A. Times and whoever provides them with information, is not a regular visitor to Point Roberts... Although it's possible that the Times, like me, is not sure what is the exact factor to use in order to convert liter prices to gallon equivalents.
And why don't we ever get per gallon prices, anyway? Because then we would OF
COURSE know how much more we pay than those in ROTUS?
Today, at the Shell station, regular is listed at $1.249/liter. Which would, according to my converter, mean $4.73/gallon. Somewhat higher than Los Angeles' piddling $4.48/gallon, which is getting national news coverage and all that. Poor babes!
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
A Five-Raccoon Day
This afternoon, I look out into the yard and I see one raccoon at the base of a plum tree and a second raccoon racing up the trunk. But these two raccoons are pretty big: like medium-sized raccoons. And then I see there was already one up in the plum tree so now there are three raccoons. I race to get my camera which does not have image stabilization but I am going to have to get a new one if I get a new life that features regular raccoon visits.
So, I'm outside now with the camera and the down on the ground raccoon moves across the yard and away from me and goes up the trunk of the pecan tree. And one of the raccoons in the plum tree comes down and goes up the pecan tree trunk, making a brief stop to whack the clothespin bag on this way up. And then the one on the ground stands up and takes a good, long look at me and I wonder what are the chances he is going to come at me?
He doesn't. Just stands up, paws off the ground, and stares while I move over to the plum tree where the other raccoon is eating plums. But when I get there, I see one raccoon and an extra tail; then I see two raccoons and still an extra tail. So now there are three raccoons in the plum tree and two raccoons in/around the pecan tree. I am awash in raccoons, all of them staring at me as if I might be up to no good. I take a dozen photos, almost all of which don't turn out to be much.
After awhile, the three in the plum tree come down and join the two at the pecan tree and for awhile they are all in the pecan tree, which has no pecans, of course. And then one of the them comes down from the pecan tree backwards (so much for Wikipedia). And the rest come down forwards. And they line up and go climb over the fence in the back of the yard, setting out to entertain my neighbors, I guess.
All five are medium-sized raccoons. I've never seen five together before up here: always before, it has been either a mom with kids or a single guy, like Uncle Charlie who has no tail. A band of guys? A team of some sort? Or just plum eaters?
So, I'm outside now with the camera and the down on the ground raccoon moves across the yard and away from me and goes up the trunk of the pecan tree. And one of the raccoons in the plum tree comes down and goes up the pecan tree trunk, making a brief stop to whack the clothespin bag on this way up. And then the one on the ground stands up and takes a good, long look at me and I wonder what are the chances he is going to come at me?
After awhile, the three in the plum tree come down and join the two at the pecan tree and for awhile they are all in the pecan tree, which has no pecans, of course. And then one of the them comes down from the pecan tree backwards (so much for Wikipedia). And the rest come down forwards. And they line up and go climb over the fence in the back of the yard, setting out to entertain my neighbors, I guess.
All five are medium-sized raccoons. I've never seen five together before up here: always before, it has been either a mom with kids or a single guy, like Uncle Charlie who has no tail. A band of guys? A team of some sort? Or just plum eaters?
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
They're Back for More
No sign of them today, though. Not hungry for plums. Gone somewhere else to eat pears, maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)