Candidate Forum Extra Questions – Jan 26, 2013 Town Hall

Eagle Forum Candidate Town Hall
Jan 26, 2013

The following questions were submitted from the Public to be asked of the Candidates. We ran out of time to ask all the questions. Candidates generally said yes they would be willing to take some time to answer questions and have them posted on the web. There were 15 extra questions.

Answers can be read by clicking the questions.

Rick Boucher
Orcas Eagle Forum



    1. Are you in favor of restricting further the people’s access to public records as described in House Bill 1128, or otherwise, that would legally prohibit or restrain by injunction people’s ability to inspect or copy public records? Have you taken part in any way promoting or supporting the effort to restrict access to public records and if “yes”, then why?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    I believe that access to public records under he current Washington State Pubic Records Act is both appropriate and necessary for public confidence in government.  HB 1128 is, in my opinion, what appears to be an excessive response to a few very egregious situations in which requesters have blatantly abused the rights created by the Public Records Act.  I believe that some revisions to the Public Records Act are needed to address these extreme outlier cases, where requestors seem to have abused the present system through the request of significant amounts of information.  I feel that HB 1128 is not well thought out nor ready for adoption. As it pertains to the County, I feel that having open and transparent government, which I intend to promote, may resolve some of the need for significant requests to obtain public records.


    Rick Hughes:

    I fully support open and transparent government. However, a thorough reading of the bill includes many elements that I would support and some, in my opinion, that are ill considered.

    In Section 1 for example, in order to get an injunction, the court must make at least one of five possible determinations. Four of the five seem reasonable. Those four are: 1) the records request was made to harass or intimidate the agency or its employees, 2) the request was made to retaliate or punish the agency for an action or actions it took or proposed to take, 3) fulfilling the request would likely threaten the safety of staff, family members of staff or the agency’s facilities, and 4) fulfilling the request would likely aid in a criminal activity. These four relate to requests for information that clearly are not legitimate requests.

    What I don’t agree with is if the request puts an undue hardship on the agency. In my opinion ‘undue hardship’ is poorly defined and thus open to wide interpretation. Also, even with the restrictions outlined in Section 2, I think it overly emphasizes employee work burden and associated costs. While I’m always in favor of reducing costs and increasing efficiency, I recognize that the cost to maintain an open and transparent government is worth the price.


    Lisa Byers:

    I have not studied in detail the implications of House Bill 1128. I believe that citizens have the right to view public records. I have not taken part in promoting or supporting efforts to restrict access to public records. I am, however, concerned about the financial cost of responding to the increased volume of requests.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    While I have always supported public access to public records, this issue is also about the costs associated with responding to public records requests.  The Washington State laws related to public records requests have created an unfunded state mandate.  As a Council Member I have supported the efforts of the Washington State Association of Counties to make changes to these laws in order to address the counties’ cost burdens.

    The costs associated with complying with the public records requests laws should be paid by the State or the public records requestors or there should be a vote of the people of San Juan County to authorize that these costs be paid from the County’s general fund or other designated funding source.


    Bob Jarman:

    I am an advocate of being able to access pubic records. It should be every person’s right to do so. However, I have seen people taking advantage of this right, making overly excessive requests that tie up our county’s resources. Excessive requests need to be fee based.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    2. Do you believe all existing shoreline development that falls within the new shoreline buffers should be considered non-conforming with the long range goal of elimination?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    I do not believe that such a position is either consistent with current provisions of the Shoreline Management Act or that prompting the elimination of current structures and uses is appropriate public policy under whatever terminology, nonconforming or otherwise. The only exception to this would be when a structure or use is shown to be a public nuisance or hazard, in which case the county could use traditional procedures to abate the problem.


    Rick Hughes:

    No


    Lisa Byers:

    I believe that existing shoreline development should be grandfathered.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    No. I voted for the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) which states clearly, “It is the policy of San Juan County that existing legally established structures, uses and activities established on the effective date of this ordinance may continue in perpetuity and will not be considered nonconforming as a result of critical area requirements.” (Ordinance 26-2012, page 49).

    Shoreline development is also addressed in the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), which is in the process of being updated. It was the goal of the previous Council to have consistency between the CAO and the SMP. Similar language as included in the CAO could also be included in the SMP.


    Bob Jarman:

    Absolutely not. Most existing shoreline developments were conforming at the time of construction. The date the permits were issued and construction finished needs to be “grandfathered” in so that these developments are shown to have been conforming. Many, many homes and structures along the waterfront are now considered “nonconforming”, putting the property at risk. This is not only unfair, but ridiculous.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    3. Do you think all shorelines in SJC are critical requiring large buffers?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    It remains unclear whether any buffers, beyond the setbacks we had under the prior code provisions, are necessary for the protection of the functions and values of such areas. I do not believe that the County has done all the work or made the findings required by all of the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act and I anticipate that challenges from the Growth Management Board are forthcoming. Such findings may indicate the County failed to secure the information necessary to support such conclusions and will likely require re-review of buffer size and location, as well as revisions to larger sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance or Shoreline Master Plan.


    Rick Hughes:

    No


    Lisa Byers:

    I do not believe that all shoreline in San Juan County has the same level of sensitivity or needs the same level of protection.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    I supported the inclusion of all marine shorelines as critical areas in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO); however the CAO as adopted does not include all marine shorelines as critical areas.

    I also voted for the site specific regulations of the CAO which provides for water quality and habitat buffers of varying sizes depending upon a number of site specific factors. Please also see answer to question #2 above


    Bob Jarman:

    No. We have maintained our shore line better than any other county in the State of WA. Our present buffers/ordinances/codes are adequate.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    4. My property value on Orcas went down 40% this year. Will my taxes go down 40%.

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    The quick answer is unfortunately no. Secondly, I would point out that I am not an expert in describing the equations used to calculate and adjust valuations and would encourage you to visit the county website (www.sanjuanco.com) or obtain this year’s Assessments booklet that is provided by the Assessors office. The basic principle is that the County can collect a maximum amount of taxes and that these taxes are distributed across the value of the property of the County to determine the rate, or levy imposed. While the value of the property went down 40%, there is a re-distribution of the taxes, not a one for one reduction. Again I encourage you to get information directly from the County Assessors office.


    Rick Hughes:

    No, it’s unlikely your taxes will go down by 40%, although it is possible that your (meaning an individual’s) taxes may go down somewhat, while for others their taxes may go up. The Washington State system recognizes that property values can fluctuate but services demanded by its citizens do not. Therefore, when the property values change, whether they go up or down, the corresponding rate changes so that there is consistent revenue. In other words, the tax rates are adjusted to achieve a comparable amount of revenue.


    Lisa Byers:

    Your taxes will not go down by the same amount that your assessed value went down. The process for determining the amount of real estate taxes that we pay is determined by multiplying the mill rate (the amount per $1,000 of value) by the assessed value. State law states that counties may increase by 1% each year the total revenue collected from property taxes on property other than new development. The amount collected is determined by multiplying the total assessed value for the county by the mill rate. When assessed values go down, the mill rate goes up in order to meet that total revenue calculation. Within that calculation, some property owners may see a slight decrease in taxes, while others might see a slight increase.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    I urge you to ask the Assessor for information about your property taxes. My understanding is that just because your property value went down 40% this year, that does not mean that your taxes will go down 40%. Tax collections do not correspond directly with changes in assessed property values. Property tax collections are based on the millage rate for the various taxes collected (and the millage rates can be adjusted each year) as applied to assessed property valuations.


    Bob Jarman:

    No. Taxes are based on Budgets. The only way taxes will decrease is if spending decreases. In setting budgets, the Council needs to remember that our county’s primary responsibilities are “Public Safety (Public Works), Health, and Law & Justice”. I am fiscally conservative, but socially aware. I will work hard to make sure the needs of our citizens come first.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    5. TO LISA BYERS and LOVEL PRATT: How do you respond to being backed financially by the Friends (of the San Juans)?

    DISTRICT 2

    Lisa Byers:

    I have received no financial contributions from the Friends of the San Juans. As a nonprofit organization, the Friends of the San Juans is prohibited from donating or endorsing candidates.


    Greg Ayers:

    No response


    Rick Hughes:

    No response


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    To date my campaign has received $18,329 from 153 supporters. Of those 153 supporters, 2 are board members of the Friends of the San Juan Islands. Among the 153 supporters who have made financial contribution there are likely at least 153 different ideas about what I should do if elected to the new County Council. I will uphold my oath of office and I will make decisions based on my research and understanding; the advice of other electeds, department heads and staff; and all the in-put I receive from community members.

    I am grateful to all 153 contributors to my campaign regardless of their other affiliations, and I owe nothing for those contributions. I know that the $25 contribution from one supporter in fact represents a far greater percentage of their income than the $500 contribution from another supporter. I value each one of my supporters whether they can make a financial contribution in any amount or if they can only provide words of encouragement. I believe these contributions are made because they believe in me, and I don’t believe anyone thinks they are buying my vote on any issue.

    I would respectfully like to ask if this question was asked of all candidates as to how they respond to being backed financially by organizations and groups in our community? For example, one of my opponents has reported $3,050 in total contributions to date, with $1,000 or 33% from the Vice President of the Common Sense Alliance.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response


    Bob Jarman:

    :No response



    6. What will you do about CDPD and when?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    Improving the customer service orientation of Community Development & Planning Department is a top priority because so much of what County government does is affected by Community Development & Planning Department activities. I feel that this customer service orientation will need to be used to define goals and objectives for the department with clear metrics to determine performance to these goals within pre-established timelines. I also plan to put in place clear requirements and documented processes that will be used by this department for consistent and timely decision-making. I strongly believe that combining these two concepts will result in a more collaborative relationship and predictable outcomes for users of Community Development & Planning Department. I also believe that such alignment of public expectations and department/employee goals will allow for celebrations of successes, rather than the de-motivating personnel situation that exists today.


    Rick Hughes:

    It’s important to make the code simpler and easier to understand to lessen the chance of unfair rulings. I think that for the CDPD, and really for every department of county government, I am working to make customer service our number 1 priority. In addition, for the CDPD specifically I am looking to set up an appeal board.


    Lisa Byers:

    The Community Development and Planning Department (CD&PD) is on the path to providing better customer service and increasing efficiency, and I will do what I can to continue that process. I support the department’s work to digitize its records and make them accessible online. I support the department’s efforts and will strive to accelerate its work to create simpler permits for simpler requests (such as a building permit for a shed or small building), and to make it possible to submit permit applications online. I will support efforts to improve customer service through training, professional development, and employee accountability. CD&PD deals with many of the contentious issues in our county. The staff members deserve leadership from the Council to give them the tools they need to do a good job, and the citizens deserve efficient, consistent and predictable service.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    This question is too vague to answer. Please be more specific.


    Bob Jarman:

    This has been an issue for years. Our ordinances need to be simplified. The process needs to be streamlined. We have a problem when a Planner says, “Maybe we need a manual to understand the ordinances.” We need to make it “user friendly”. As a member of the Council, I am on the Builders Advisory Committee, and we have started simplifying and cleaning up the building codes. Next will be land use. This will take some time. In the mean time, we will expect cooperation and relations between the Council and Planning Dept. to improve, thus improving “customer service and user friendly attitudes” throughout the department.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    7. How would you lead San Juan County in locally preparing for climate change?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    I would begin by carefully evaluating the data from studies that have been relied upon to date and data related to potential mitigations of the emission of green-house gasses from the County. Based on the data related to the effectiveness of certain measures, I would look at opportunities for the County, in a cost efficient manner, to implement them. Cost effective would include using the correct, but lowest cost option (if more than one exists) and also primarily focusing on implementing any measures only during acquisition, construction, development and/or renovation of County structures and real property. I would be opposed to the County becoming involved in supporting, or worse yet mandating any climate change activities for individual citizens.


    Rick Hughes:

    Last year the state Department of Ecology conducted a study and published an Integrated Climate Change Response Strategy. This publication includes strategies for infrastructure and communities, health and security, and ecosystems. As a member of the council, I think it would be time well spent to convene a group of individuals from the planning department, the sheriff’s office, the various heads from fire and rescue, concerned citizens and qualified county experts to review the Integrated Climate Change Response Strategy, focusing specifically on islands and coastal areas to determine our own strategic response plan.


    Lisa Byers:

    To prepare for climate change, the county needs to have strong emergency management procedures so that citizens can have food, shelter and medical care during strong weather events. In addition, the county needs to do its part to reduce its carbon footprint by moving towards non-carbon-based sources of energy and improving the energy efficiency of its buildings.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    First of all there are steps the Council can take to provide leadership in reducing San Juan County’s carbon footprint. The 2008 Climate Change Resolution (Resolution 8-2008) should be reviewed and updated as needed.

    I would ask the Public Works Department, Department of Emergency Management, and the WA State Department of Transportation to provide reports and plans for potential impacts to shoreline infrastructure from sea level rise and increased storm surges.

    I have provided proactive leadership in drafting the Gateway Pacific coal terminal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping letters that asked for the potential impacts of climate change related to the coal transport and burning be included and addressed in the EIS.

    I am also interested in understanding how ocean acidification is affecting the marine life in San Juan County and the many marine based jobs that are important to our local economy.


    Bob Jarman:

    We have a lot of local issues before us. We need to be aware of issues that will affect our climate: shipping of coal through our waters, for example. Every citizen needs to do his or her part in conserving, using green products, and being aware of what we put into our atmosphere. County government can only do so much.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    8. Taxes – not one word about them tonight. How would you suggest that they can be lowered?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    Although I did not use the word taxes, I described my approach to budgeting and to decisions regarding whether and when services should be provided by the County (and thus supported by taxes or other revenues). My approach is designed to ask the tough questions to be sure that we can live within our means in our rural island community. Part of this is seeking to improve the efficiency of services the County is required to provide, and then to think carefully about when the County needs to be involved in the provision of other services. Keeping the County efficient and overhead at a minimum will prevent the unnecessary raising of taxes.


    Rick Hughes:

    It’s important to recognize that most taxes are not under the control of the county council. The large majority of taxes are set by the state or have been voted into place by the citizens of the county. What the county council can do is to try to create a more efficient government with easier to understand regulations, which could facilitate some lowering of fees or fines.


    Lisa Byers:

    The way to lower taxes is to increase efficiency and to reduce services.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    As a Council Member I always asked voters to authorize or reject any proposed tax increases. I am grateful to the voters for supporting the levy lid lift in 2009 and the public safety sales tax in 2012. I respect the voters’ decision to reject the solid waste parcel fee in 2011.

    I do not see additional significant cost savings and/or efficiencies that could maintain existing County programs and services while reducing costs and thereby lower taxes. If the voters were to authorize cuts to and/or eliminate programs or services that are not state or federally mandated, then I would support a corresponding reduction in taxes.


    Bob Jarman:

    The only way to reduce taxes is to reduce spending and to encourage commerce. We need to define what our functions/priorities are and then how we want to go about funding them. What are our acceptable levels of service? The Council hopes to be able to assess these questions through our Community Conversation meetings.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    10. What are the pitfalls or negatives of a 3 member council verses the 6 member and how will you deal with them?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    I feel it is necessary to put this into perspective. It is my understanding that most counties in the State of Washington have a 3-member council and they function adequately well. It is my opinion that the largest potential negative of a 3-member council is that if 2 people are of like mind or motivation, whether or not in alignment with the desires of the residents of San Juan County, they can pass legislation and take actions as they would have a majority vote. I believe this is why the requirement for Council Members is that they are independent and non-partisan. Such factors can be judged by looking at the present candidates, their relations and any ties announced with respect to political parties. This pitfall is partially overcome by the fact that the race is obviously run in public, and it is clear and apparent whether any of the candidates have a potential conflict with respect to independence. The other limitation is more functional, but is easily overcome and could be considered an advantage by many residents. This situation is a result of the fact that if any 2 Council Members are together discussing anything having to do with County matters they are required to do so in public. What is the result? The public is likely to see, and have the chance to participate in more “working sessions” of the Council than before, as even basic County operational discussions must be held in public. While these working sessions may be a bit cumbersome, I believe it could be a highly functional situation.


    Rick Hughes:

    The negatives as I see them are a reduction of considered and diverse opinions that reflect the varied views of the county, which will require a more focused effort to reach out to all citizens on all the islands to insure their thoughts are heard. Also, with six it is exponentially harder to reach consensus, requiring more thoughtful positions with clear and factual supporting data to convince at least three other council members of the merits of suggested legislation. However, the vote of the county is what it is and I will work as hard to represent each island as I am now to represent my current district.


    Lisa Byers:

    The challenge a 3-member council faces is that council members cannot have any discussions with one another except in public session. This means that council members may not follow customary methods of building rapport with their fellow council members, and also cannot test ideas with one another, except in public session. The advantage of this is that the public is able to witness their representatives’ process and gain better understanding of why and how their representatives deliberate as they do.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    I supported all three propositions to change the Charter. I do not see pitfalls or negatives of a three-member Council. A three-member Council will provide greater transparency of Council decision-making processes (all meetings will be noticed and open to the public) and more efficient decision-making processes (three Council Members will require less time to deliberate and reach decisions than six Council Members).


    Bob Jarman:

    The main pitfalls of a 3 member council is the “one person, one vote” issue. I don’t think it provides equal representation for the people in your district. Also, because of the Open Public Meeting Act, the only time a member can talk to another member is in public meetings. The 6 member council provides for more interaction and, I believe, a better representation of our districts. As a Fire Commissioner, I am one of three. I have dealt with the 3 member situation for 8 years, and feel comfortable dealing with situations that arise while abiding by the Open Public Meeting Act.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    11. The county-wide compliance with code requirements to inspect on-site septic is systems is 27%. Is that okay with you and if not, what would you do?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    As an Eastsound Sewer and Water Commissioner, I find this rate of testing unacceptable. For many years the ESWD has been attempting to connect homes inside the UGA, only to be told that septic fields had not failed and hence connection to the sewer was not warranted. Without testing, of any form, or compliance with existing County requirements, the ability for any of us to determine septic system failure rates is clearly limited. I believe that it is important for us to assure compliance with our current rules by administering appropriate fines and remedies to assure compliance, and to continue educational efforts to help islanders do the right thing to protect our environment.


    Rick Hughes:

    First of all it’s important to realize that according to the code 100% compliance will not equate to 100% annually inspected. Most of the systems in the county only require inspection once every three years. So we need to determine what percent inspected equal 100% compliance (where we know that the minimum must exceed 33%) then we can look at mitigation plans to improve compliance. For example, if we say that there are 5000 septic systems in the county and 90% require inspection once every 3 years, 9 percent must be inspected annually and 1 percent must be inspected quarterly, then 100% inspection compliance is only 45.7% of the systems. Once we know the shortfall, we can begin to determine solutions.


    Lisa Byers:

    It is my understanding that the current approach to drainfield inspection was established out of the desire for inspections to occur through educational efforts rather than regulatory enforcement. Before seeking a change in the ordinance, I would want to know more about the goals of the program, and the effort to date. Has the educational effort been fully funded? Have septic tank pumping companies been enrolled in educating their customers? How many septic tanks get pumped each year, and if we increased the level of engagement by septic pumping companies, could we significantly increase the number of drainfields that have been inspected?


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    To answer this question I contacted the County for more information – asking for further information about the statistics, what enforcement actions are in use and what enforcement options are available, recommendations for improving compliance rates, recommendations for any changes to the code, and the level of priority. I’ll imbed the answer I received below.

    The compliance rates listed below are not satisfactory. I would support the Board of Health’s authority to institute rates/charges that the Treasurer can collect on the property tax statement which would provide a stable long-term funding source and eliminate the inspection report filing fee.

    The O&M program plan and associated regulations were adopted by the San Juan County Board of Health in 2007. The program plan included a phased approached given our limited staff and resources. To fully implement the program it was anticipated that we would need 2 to 3 FTE’s and funding in excess of $300,000. Given the current economic climate and funding sources we only have 1 FTE’s to implement the program. As a result our compliance rates (systems with a current inspection report of file) are as follows:

    Declared Sensitive Areas (inspections required yearly): 26%

    Alternative Systems not in Sensitive Areas (inspections required yearly): 21%

    Gravity Systems not in Sensitive Areas (inspections required every three years): 33%

    Another important statistic is the number of systems that have had one or more inspections in the past five years. When we look at this the percentage increases to 46%.

    Currently enforcement is limited to requiring inspections at time of sale and for building permits.

    One change that would be effective is to change the way we collect fees for the program. Currently we rely on a $30 inspection report filing fee. As a result only those individuals that submit inspection reports pay for the program. A recent change in State law allows the Board of Health to institute rates/charges that the Treasurer can collect on the property tax statement. This would provide a stable long-term funding source and eliminate the inspection report filing fee.

    We would rank this a high priority for our department.


    Bob Jarman:

    Septic compliance is important, as noncompliance can be one of the largest polluters of our lands. I am in favor of educating homeowners to noncompliance dangers and continuing with the notices sent out to homeowners to have the sites inspected on time.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    12. To each candidate: Explain why or why not have you accepted a National Political Party’s endorsement?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    In part see my answer to question 11. I feel that for the County to have government run by independent Council Members this race should be non-partisan. It should be noted that only the Democratic Party has offered an endorsement to me (and I believe the other candidates), and I rejected asking for their endorsement by not filling out their questionnaire. Other national parties have not contacted me about support or endorsements and I applaud them for this stance.


    Rick Hughes:

    The Charter says this is a non-partisan election, so I follow not only the letter of the charter, but the spirit as well and am independent. Note: if it were a partisan election I’d still be an independent, because I feel that in county elections, partisanship can provide for a lazy electorate. The voters should do all they can to learn about the candidates, their backgrounds and their positions. Without the crutch of an (R) or (D) after the candidate’s name, a voter must educate him or herself on each candidate to be able to cast a meaningful vote. I’m proud of the fact that in the November 2012 election, the people who know me best, the people in my district, elected me with nearly 70% of the vote with no party affiliation.


    Lisa Byers:

    I have not accepted the endorsement of a national political party. I have accepted the endorsement of the San Juan County Democratic Party. The county Democratic Party invited all candidates to answer a questionnaire. The Party endorsed me based on my answers to those questions. I accepted the endorsement, because I have generally, though not exclusively, voted Democratic. Accepting the endorsement was a way of communicating that fact to the voters.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    I am proud of all the endorsements I have received. The objections to local political party endorsements are very confusing. During the 2012 election, the SJC Democrats were forthright in stating their endorsement of me, which brought about this kind of criticism. At the same time, only my opponent was included on the SJC Republican Party’s website and only my opponent was invited to speak at the SJC GOP event that featured several regional and statewide Republican candidates. This certainly gave the impression that my opponent was endorsed by the Republicans.

    The Journal of the San Juan Islands’ editorial on December 5, 2012 states: “The charter doesn’t say candidates cannot be a member of, or be supported by, a political party. Nor does it specify that members of a political party, or the political party itself, cannot endorse, contribute to, or work for a given candidate. To do so would surely be a violation of constitutional guaranties of free association and free speech…. We recognize that political parties and “special interests” can be a source of dysfunction and frustration, both locally and nationally. But we’d much rather they come right out in public with their endorsements and contributions and positions on issues. Then you can make up your mind with maximum information.”

    The Charter, and also the voters’ intent, does not violate our constitutional guaranties of free association and free speech by restricting endorsements. What is important is open and transparent government and that begins with the campaign. I will continue to receive and seek endorsements from individuals and groups throughout this campaign and I will ensure that those endorsements are open and transparent.


    Bob Jarman:

    I have not asked for or accepted any Political Party endorsement. I have always voted my conscience, considering what I believe is best for my community and country. This is a non-partisan position. If a person accepts a Political Party endorsement, that person represents the party’s views and shows that he or she can be influenced in decision making.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    13. Aren’t the taxpayers of this county the real boss? Who allowed the different county departments to control the county managers, council and taxpayers? How would you suggest this situation be reversed?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    The right and responsibility of citizens to participate and oversee County government is the essence of the Home Rule Charter. It is the responsibility of the County Council to manage the County and all of its departments, particularly with the passage of Proposition 2. I believe that making the Council responsible for administrative, as well as legislative functions, should address these issues if we elect the right people to the Council.


    Rick Hughes:

    There’s no question that the citizens of the county are The Boss and they exercise their authority through their vote. I don’t agree, however, with the question’s premise that county departments control the council. I know for me that is not true. From my perspective it is important to note that the county and the council need the various departments to provide services and data on the status of their activities. And, similar to effectively run Boards of Directors in the business world, it is vital to balance a strong working relationship with the departments with a healthy skepticism of the data provided. It’s important to have clear and open dialog with both department managers and with those that they manage, to get a ground floor view of the work, activities and results.


    Lisa Byers:

    The citizens of San Juan County are the constituents who are served by county government. The organizational structure whereby department heads report to the County Manager and the Council is established in order to provide accountability and supervision. The goal of the structure is to provide the best level of service possible for the amount of tax revenues collected.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    The ‘real boss’ of San Juan County is the voters. There are many taxpayers who don’t vote in San Juan County and have no say over how their tax dollars are spent. It is up to the voters to elect the Council Members who have legislative and administrative authority and who adopt the County budget. The voters also elect the Sheriff, Prosecuting Attorney, Judges and Clerk who uphold and enforce the laws; and the Assessor, Treasurer, and Auditor who collect, invest, and audit all revenues and expenditures.


    Bob Jarman:

    The taxpayers are the boss. We need to get the citizens of the county back in control. We need a strong Council with management skills; people that will hold employees to performance standards and expected results. I bring those skills to the Council.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    14. Do you see the use of Google and Polaris enhanced satellite images of local properties at resolutions that exceed what the naked eye would see at the legal minimum flight altitude by county governments for land use and development enforcement as violations of the U.S. Constitution’s 4th amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches and the Washington State Constitution’s Article 1, Section 7 which is even more restrictive and states, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of Law,” ?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    I am not a lawyer, so the constitutional law question is outside my expertise (it appears to be an interesting question, however, since the EPA now has its drones). As a scientist, I have not reviewed the reliability of these tools for enforcement purposes. As a member of our community, I have to question the need or appropriateness of high tech surveillance techniques in our rural community. I believe that we should be able to discuss and resolve our differences as neighbors. I have not had an opportunity to review County policy regarding the use of these techniques for enforcement purposes, but believe that the protection of property rights, including the rights of neighboring owners and the public, is one of the most important governmental functions.


    Rick Hughes:

    These programs are readily available to the public. I don’t think the county should employ them in a blanket search for violations, but if a violation is reported to the county, the county does have an obligation to investigate. As I understand it, the county would not need a warrant to view property from areas that are publicly available (for example, what can be seen from the road) so the question would be: are Google or Polaris considered “publicly available?” There are some pending lawsuits that have been brought to consider this question, and I support the questioner’s right to bring suit against Google or Polaris if he or she is so inclined.

    Again, my opinion is that the county should not use them for blanket searches, and if a violation is reported to the county, even with Google available, a legal on-site search would still be required, therefore the on-site search should be sufficient.

    Again, my opinion is that the county should not use them for blanket searches, and if a violation is reported to the county, even with Google available, a legal on-site search would still be required, therefore the on-site search should be sufficient.


    Lisa Byers:

    No.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    This is a legal question that needs to be answered by the Prosecuting Attorney. I support the use of GIS (Geographic Information System) as a tool for a wide variety of County services and for the Council’s decision-making processes.


    Bob Jarman:

    I enjoy my privacy. Since the inception of Google maps and Polaris, the right to privacy can be taken away. It has given some groups a tool to spy and opens up the chances for abuse. Technology can be wonderful, but must be used responsibly. Ultimately, this will be up to the courts to decide how best to protect our citizens.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



    15. If you do not pledge allegiance to the flag, can you take the oath of office that all candidates and office holders are required to take?

    DISTRICT 2

    Greg Ayers:

    I do pledge allegiance to the flag and will take and honor the oath of office if you give me your vote and the opportunity to serve the people of San Juan County.


    Rick Hughes:

    I did pledge, I do pledge and I will pledge. The pledge and oath are important to me, personally. However, I recognize that reciting the pledge of allegiance is not required of any citizen, nor is it indicative of anyone’s patriotism or qualification to hold office. Nor is singing the National Anthem or wearing a flag lapel pin. There is but one oath we must swear to, and upholding that oath includes defending someone’s right not to recite the pledge of allegiance.


    Lisa Byers:

    I pledge allegiance to the flag. I believe it is possible to take the oath of office without making that pledge.


    DISTRICT 1

    Lovel Pratt:

    All elected officials have the option of swearing or affirming their oath of office. I affirm my oath of office.


    Bob Jarman:

    I believe in our Constitutional rights, which includes freedom of religion. Our Founding Fathers fought for these rights. This is what makes America great. I believe anyone who takes an oath of office should pledge allegiance to the flag, as it represents America…the country that is affording that person his or her rights and freedoms.


    Mark Forleza:

    No response



Leave a Reply