Sunlight is the best disinfectant. |
All right, Pacific International Terminal, Bill Lyne, Gordon Thomas Honeywell, and all you bigwigs who play in the big leagues. We get it. You’re big and important, and Whatcom County is small and insignificant. We are Hicksville, way up in corner of the state, with hardly any people and no significance to your great big important world. Well, other than the fact that our marine shoreline could support a deepwater port that you need for North America's largest coal export terminal.
But really. You’ve
seen the movie "Braveheart,” right? You
may see us as the rebels with our faces painted blue, beyond the pale of
civilization up here in the far reaches of Puget Sound, but do you really
expect us to surrender our County to you without a fight?
Let me repeat a fact that sometimes seems to get lost the discussion: Pacific International Terminal has proposed to locate North
America’s largest export terminal in our County. This is one of the biggest
projects in the country. The entire U.S. of A. Right here in Whatcom County.
When an enormous project descends on a small community, it
is not unusual for the enormous project to take over the small community. After all, project proponents need to make
sure that local concerns don’t get in the way. They have a lot at stake, and the last thing
that they need is for the local yokels to putz about, putting big plans at risk with their petty concerns.
And the big guys have the know-how and the wherewithal to keep the locals out of the gears of the machinery. Right?
Well, maybe not. Not necessarily. That is, if Hicksville really turns out to be
Pretty Smart Community With a Bunch of Active, Interested Citizens.
Last week, County Council Chair Carl Weimer proposed a minor amendment to the County Code. The Code already states that contracts “entered into by the county” (that means
the County Executive) over $10,000 must be reviewed and approved by the County
Council. The Council's approval authority
currently excludes “pass-through
moneys,” or contracts where an applicant reimburses the County. The Executive may approve such contracts –
even if the contracts are in the millions of dollars – without any Council review.
Mr. Weimer’s amendment simply states that contracts “which
involve externally funded pass-through moneys” should be approved by the County
Council. That’s all it does. It
eliminates a loophole in the normal system of checks and balances that
provides oversight of large contracts.
Why did this simple amendment result in this splenetic three-page bloviation from the lawyer for Pacific International Terminal, the
applicant for the Gateway Pacific coal terminal?
Why would PIT, a project applicant, insert itself into a
matter that’s strictly local, relating to the process for approving a contract?
If everything is on the up-and-up, why would the applicant
care WHO reviews the contract, or HOW MANY people review the contract?
In short, why is PIT afraid of transparency?
According to an article in the Bellingham Herald, Council
member Sam Crawford believes that transparency about PIT’s “pass-through”
contract would be harmful because citizens aren’t smart enough to understand
the role of contracts. Oversight of
pass-through contracts “could create the false impression that the public will
be able to convince the council to halt the process over a small change. ‘I
think that's too much and that's unnecessary,’ Crawford said of the proposed
change to county law. ‘The public may ultimately end up disappointed.’"
So Mr. Crawford and the coal terminal folks just want to
protect us from ourselves, to keep us from being “disappointed.” That’s one possible explanation. If you agree that the County needs to act in loco parentis, or in the role of a
parent that needs to protect its child-like citizens from information, then
this makes sense. I
suppose. If that's how you view the role of government.
A letter that David Stalheim wrote to the County Council
last week may provide another explanation. From the information that’s available
in public records, it appears that the "pass through" contract doesn't work.
The County has not actually billed PIT for
much time spent on its application. The record indicates that no county attorney has
reviewed any contracts or other documents, the Finance Department has not
billed for any time involved in processing contracts or paying bills, and the
Public Works Department – which is responsible for stormwater, water quality,
and transportation impacts – has spent less than five hours on North American’s
largest coal terminal.
What does that mean?
It could just mean that the County’s not very good about keeping time,
and that this record-keeping failure means that we the taxpayers are
subsidizing PIT. That’s not very
appealing.
Or it could mean that the County is just rubber-stamping everything
that PIT wants to have done, without actually reviewing it or raising any
questions. That is even less appealing.
Sunlight, which Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called "the best
disinfectant," would reveal whether or not there is a reason for concern. And sunlight, in the form of public
transparency, could not conceivably hurt anyone involved in the contract –
assuming that the contract is shipshape, aboveboard, well monitored, and in the
public interest.
So, if you think that it ought to be OK for the public and
the County Council to see what’s happening in the contract between PIT and
Whatcom County, please write to the County Council and support Council Chair
Weimer’s resolution. The Council's e-mail address is council@co.whatcom.wa.us.
Or attend the Council meeting on Tuesday, February 11th. The Finance and Administrative Services Committee will consider the proposed amendment at 11:00 (the public may or may not be allowed to speak, but you can at least listen to your policy-makers debate the issue), and open session will start shortly after the meeting begins at 7:00 in the evening. The agenda is here.
If you think that PIT knows best how our County should
be run, then by all means, support PIT.
Either way, we’ll know
whose County this is.
on point and to the point. It is our county and we will defend our right to know what is going on before it is a done deal. Time for the County Executive to embrace democracy and you too Sam Crawford. Thanks for the clear thinking Jean.
ReplyDeleteThank you Jean. I will be at the 9:30 and 11:00 AM meetings and 7 PM Council Meeting. A number of issues including slaughterhouse zoning and water planning on the agenda. Let's all show up and sign up to speak!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Frank and Bob. Those who couldn't open the PIT letter -- I forgot to change the access from "private" to "shared," but it should be fixed now. Let me know if it's not.
ReplyDeleteWho the hell do SSA, Peabody Coal, BNSF, et al., think they are to tell our county how to write our own code provisions regarding contract approval? This is while they're supposedly wooing us? Imagine what they would demand from us if they had real leverage.
ReplyDeleteRight, Terry. This is really a hint of the future if we let them get a hold on this county.
DeleteThanks Jean for the heads-up and great explanation of what is going on. I definitely want to go to both meetings so I can stay informed! I sent my email just a few minutes ago as well
ReplyDeleteThanks. This was very helpful reading.
ReplyDeleteSam Crawford, how low an opinion do you have of the public's ability to discern what these companies are trying to put over on us?
Do you suppose that old Sam's consulting business works for the coal interests?
ReplyDeleteThis consulting firm which he appears to be running out of the County Courthouse building? Is that legal?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bizapedia.com/wa/STRAIGHT-TALK-ABOUT-RESPONSIBILITY.html
I'm sorry I missed the meeting, but am I the only one that's a touch offended that Sam Crawford has essentially stated that the general public is too stupid to understand contract language. You know it's funny how many contracts I've declined from signing because I took the time to read them and ask questions so that I did understand them. I don't believe I am the exception to a rule here.
ReplyDelete