Pages

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Coal Port Speech Ban: We Can All Just Get Along

There’s a little bit of an uproar going on in the Bellingham Herald Politics blog.  It seems that some folks don't like being told what they can say during County Council "open sessions." 

The blog posted a pronouncement read into the record before Tuesday night’s Whatcom County Council meeting.  This pronouncement is SO IMPORTANT THAT IT MUST BE READ IN ALL-CAPS!  So don't blame me.For those who don't like to read all caps, the PRONOUNCEMENT says that no comments about the Gateway Pacific terminal will be allowed during open session. 

Here it is, as reprinted in the Herald.  I hope that Council Chair Kershner read it in an appropriately stern voice:


THE COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED A WRITTEN LEGAL OPINION FROM THE WHATCOM COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE CLARIFYING FOR US THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL PROJECT DURING “OPEN SESSION”. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT SUCH COMMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT THIS TIME. 

THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ADVISES THAT THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF A FAIR HEARING PROCESS IS THAT DECISIONS ARE MADE ENTIRELY ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD AT THE TIME OF THE PROCEEDINGS. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, AS CODIFIED BY CHAPTER 42.36 RCW, PROHIBITS EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION IS A ONE-SIDED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A DECISION-MAKER AND THE PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF A PARTICULAR PROPOSAL WHICH TAKES PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL HEARING PROCESS ON A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. OUR PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE BELIEVES THAT COMMENTS DURING OPEN SESSION, OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL HEARING PROCESS, ARE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE STATUTE DOES ALLOW FOR THE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS, PROVIDED THEY ARE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.

Some rude people made fun of this pronouncement.  Oh, all right, I was one of them.  Here’s the blog link.

But before we get all Europeany and revolting, let's take a step back and think about this.  Can’t we all just get along?  Why, sure we can.

Note that the PRONOUNCEMENT only applies to the Gateway Pacific project.  Nobody’s stopping anybody from educating the Council about coal terminals in general.

For example:  One might say “If a 48-million ton coal terminal were built on the west coast, it would require 487 of the world’s largest bulk carriers to transport all that coal across the sea to China.  Did you know that those carriers burn the dirtiest fuel on earth?”

No ex parte contact there!

Or, one might talk about Large Facilities.  As in, “when bulk materials such as coal are transported by train to Large Facilities, the diesel particulate emissions are so significant that a health risk assessment should be performed.”

Another non-ex parte contact!

It’s easy. And we can all play.

15 comments:

  1. Jean, I attended a Council committee hearing a while back where Ken Mann asked if Council members were allowed to read general background information on the coal industry.. and Karen Frakes was clear that this not appropriate.

    The Prosecutor's Office wants the Council members to be deaf, blind and dumb....(in other words, be more like the Planning Commission).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fortunately, deaf and blind's terms will run out soon....

      Delete
    2. Blind just resigned last night!

      Delete
  2. Karen Frakes "was clear" that wasn't appropriate? Was she clear as to the source of her conclusion? If it's not information about the Gateway Pacific application, it falls under. . . what prohibition?

    Perhaps the Prosecuting Attorney's office will be moved to ban certain words or topics. Perhaps there will be a whole lexicon of banned words. "Coal," "train," "coal train," "herring" [non-food grade], "habitat," "wetlands," "health" and/or "assessment," "congestion," "marine," "environmental," "impact," "statement" . . . the possibilities are endless.

    An airhorn could blow whenever one of the banned words is spoken. Or maybe a big hook would come out and pull away the offending citizen.

    Or, of course, the Council could go straight to arresting people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I kind of like the big hook, provided we can use it for other purposes in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, em, gee, I LOVE it. From now on, we line up people to comment about the proposed coal terminal in ... (wait for it) Longview!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Watching the irrationality and no-nothingism with which Council has dealt with several issues over the last two years, I am at a loss to imagine how this Council can be expected to serve as adult, rational, thoughtful, quantitative, fact-driven and perceptive "judges" on the coal issue.

    Council sessions in the last two years have all too often resembled a Monty Python scene- but without any intent by the Council to be absurdly comic. If I did not care about the issues, then the antics of Council- and of their Tea-bagger acolytes - would be good bleak comedy, cheaper than Netflix.

    And this crew is going to serve as a quasi-judicial panel?

    Abe Jacobson
    Bellingham (still on Netflix)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jean, James, and Terry,

    I'm going to start looking for 109 whatcom county residents to ask The Whatcom County Council during the open comment period to write a letter to the Permitting Authority at Longview suggesting they not allow a coal shipping terminal there. Each one will give a short statement about one of the items on James Wells list. If his list keeps growing I will have to find more people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, Lord, it just gets better and better. We ask our County Council to comment on our behalf in opposition to the proposed terminal in Longview because of ... which will directly or indirectly negatively impact us in Whatcom County.

      Delete
    2. Or the terminal at the port of Morrow, or the proposed terminal at .... As long as there is an announced comment period anywhere that hasn't closed yet, we can ask the County Council to comment on behalf of the citizens of Whatcom County who would be negatively impacted by the permitting of said terminal because....

      Delete
  7. Very interesting JM.Good to see the county is catching up with my good friends in Beijing when it comes to public discourse.

    Just an aside: don't waste intellectual energy on Joe Wilson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe Wilson must be A Friend of Yours, or AFY for short. Well, I know that everybody knows that his modus operandi is to break every law of logic, but sometimes it's just fun to point it out.

      Speaking of discourse, there are some great suggestions in the comments on the politics blog (AFY notwithstanding). In my spare time, I'm hoping to round them up and tie them to the definitions of ex parte contacts and Appearance of Fairness. There's no reason that the County can't run a GOOD, compliant process, as opposed to the current dumb process where undisclosed ex parte contacts will be the norm (tell me with a straight face that Council members aren't reading the Herald or listening to KGMI) and the genuinely public process will be sacrificed.

      Delete
  8. I'm enjoying your blog; are the council members allowed to read it?
    I like your comments on the other blog, too.
    Hey, g.h.! (Joe Who?! lol!)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've been out of Internet range for a few days, but am now sitting at the Winthrop Library using their WiFi.
    Glad to see this discussion has gotten legs and folks are seeking up! It would be really funny if it weren't so sad!

    ReplyDelete