Next Week: Charter Amendment Hearing To Further Restrict Initiatives In Clark County
Jun 22, 2024 1:17 am
The Charter Amendment Hearing To Further Restrict Initiatives In Clark County Is June 25th 10 AM
Greg Kimsey didn't like the Restore Election Confidence (REC) Initiative. We discovered a vulnerability in the bureaucratic system that keeps citizens out of the administrative elite's control, and they didn't like it. They don't want the people telling them how to do their jobs. People like Greg Kimsey believe the public shouldn't have a say in election procedures.
After I filed the REC initiative, they tried to kill it illegally. When I filed a Writ of Mandamus, they realized they had to follow the law and the Home Rule Charter. Now, they're trying to change the law to stop people from any future attempts at self-governing through initiatives.
As it stands, Clark County has the most restrictive process for proposed initiatives in Washington State. The Prosecuting Attorney's office even avoided directly answering this point today, likely because they didn't want to admit it. No other county grants such broad powers to the Prosecuting Attorney's office, and this will undoubtedly be used to shut down initiative proposals they don't like, just as they attempted with the Restore Election Confidence initiative back in December.
JUNE 25, 2024 TUESDAY The 10 AM - Initiatives Charter Amendment - Hearing Information - If You Plan To Attend And Want Help Preparing Comments CLICK HERE To Email Me & I'll Send You Info
Council Meetings are held in a hybrid format, join virtually or in person.
Participate in the following ways:
- In person, 6th floor of the Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, WA 98666
- Watch live on CVTV (Comcast channel 23)
- Livestream from your personal computer: www.cvtv.org
Join by computer: WebEx
Join by phone:
- Dial: 1-408-418-9388
- Access Code: 2496 504 7959
- Password: BOCC (2622 from phones)
- press *3 on phone to raise hand
Submit comments:
- Written via email: www.clark.wa.gov/councilors/public-comment
- Written via US Postal Service to the Clark County Council, c/o Rebecca Messinger, PO Box 5000, Vancouver, WA 98666-500
- During the meeting from your computer or phone: follow these instructions
ICYMI: WATCH UPDATE On Ethics Complaints
After months of waiting, the new Ethics Commission finally began processing multiple ethics complaints and quickly dismissed both of mine. The first step of the process is supposed to determine whether the allegations in the complaint constitute an ethics violation. At this stage, it's not about adjudicating the complaint but about seeing if it meets a basic threshold. However, that's not what occurred. Based on the Commissioners' comments, they evaluated the merit of the complaint without a full investigation, resulting in assumptions that weren't fact-based.
Regarding the Kimsey complaint, where Kimsey was accused of misleading the Council by stating that there were two errors rather than the sixteen discovered, the Commission should have looked at the complaint and the ethics policy or RCW's and asked, "Is there a possibility of an ethics violation?" Instead, the Ethics Commission explained or defended Kimsey's statement without an investigation or full examination of the facts. Even though Kimsey himself stated to the Council that he was addressing the concern that "several campaign recounts proved that the error rate is higher than the standards stated in the Help America Vote Act of 2022," when Kimsey responded, he claimed, "The error that is referenced in the statement above was the result of a human error." Don't forget that Kimsey mentioned "several campaign recounts," meaning more than one recount. He also stated, "That error resulted in two ballots not being scanned into the voting system, and as a result, the votes on those ballots could not be tabulated by the voting system."
The Commission based its decision not on whether there was an ethical rule and a complaint that conflicted but on determining if Kimsey was misleading because he didn't say "only" two ballots.
My other complaint against the Prosecuting Attorney's office was even more egregious. Instead of conducting a basic evaluation of whether the alleged conduct conflicted with ethics policy or RCWs, the Commission provided a rambling explanation, or defense, of the PA's office, suggesting that multiple holidays might have been the reason for their refusal to forward the ballot title. They completely ignored the fact that just two days after I filed the proposed initiative, the PA's office made an improper and illegal determination that they were not going to allow it on the ballot. At this stage, they should have been making a general determination of whether the alleged ethics violation was indeed a possible ethics violation. Instead, the Ethics Commission proceeded to weigh and measure the details of the actions in question without fact-finding, testimony, or a full examination of the complaint. In other words, they exonerated the PA's office without a thorough examination of the complaint.
In short, in Clark County, not being forthright by withholding information, misleading County officials and the public, and refusing to follow the Home Charter law does not constitute an ethics violation.
