[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6278522,"mediaKeyId","2640842-7065e75bfad5b45003d13fafeee779c6","parentId",2640842,"title","Charter commission records multiple procedural votes; measure to make prosecutor nonpartisan fails","audioSeconds",5960,"startMs",2640000,"endMs",8600000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640842-7065e75bfad5b45003d13fafeee779c6&start=2640&end=8600","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640842-7065e75bfad5b45003d13fafeee779c6/thumbnail_2640000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6278522/Whatcom-County/Washington/Charter-commission-records-multiple-procedural-votes-measure-to-make-prosecutor-nonpartisan-fails","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278522-0f31d06c1d6ee7807ff73d6e8c3e3920/orig.mp4?Expires=1770546288&Signature=L4qFKcD~OX~KWw5wv3CyMVI40xgea5XAcC2YKjeh1vYcYXS7S~R~KbmX5q3k82LiKh7h~baI3TIx4HAnKoR8NdKWasC8KOgGQoh1WjAMB0yOhIdaidcW2AQX2Nuo~wzgfccdBPfoRmTiigqHMGr-Amc3KhuYeIQmjN5Whi6uDD-SkRjXsfUzJICJSdjet-UXcvJ-WCmaSHL8S7CUGumSX3oPHRE31RH8jM9EbGStpFRHx1R6yixrC30cDVcXZKS5iBJ3LUt443UDOkKGgwJgKg57P8VEhNvb5dYXKNsAE4AB3LK7WCrWD92QHIFQ8cShTd3l-Cb4Qtf2Tv28oOG33g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Whatcom County, WA","date","2025-03-14T15:56:36Z","article","The Whatcom County Charter Commission met March 13 in Blaine and recorded several formal actions on pending charter amendments, including a failed effort to send a measure converting the prosecuting attorney to a nonpartisan office to the ballot and a referral of two salary-related amendment proposals to further study.

In a lengthy procedural debate the commission conducted a roll-call on a motion to rule that the Feb. 27 vote on proposed Amendment 13 (a change to signature requirements for charter amendments) was out of order because the agenda item contained two prongs that had not both been decided. The roll call recorded 7 no votes, 5 yes votes and 3 abstentions; following that vote the chair moved the meeting on to old business. The commission did not finalize new signature language at this meeting.

On proposed Amendment 6, which would make the county prosecuting attorney a nonpartisan office, the commission first approved a technical amendment making the change effective at the next regular election (2026). That amendment passed on a roll call of 12 yes, 2 no and 1 abstention. After debate the main motion to send the amended proposal to voters failed on a recorded tally reported by the chair as 14 to 1.

Separately, the commission voted to refer proposed Amendment 10 (which seeks to replace the salary commission and establish a fixed, cost-of-living–adjusted salary schedule for elected officials) and proposed Amendment 11 to a Committee of the Whole for additional discussion. The referral passed on a roll-call vote of 13 yes, 1 no with 1 commissioner excused; the body instructed staff to schedule that Committee of the Whole within 30 days if possible.

The meeting record shows several spoken motions and seconds and multiple roll-call tallies. Commissioners and members of the public pressed for more time and data about salary comparisons and commission procedures during debate; one commissioner argued the county is paying salaries higher than much larger Washington counties, while others urged caution about sending numerous charter amendments to the public.

No ordinance or charter language was adopted at the meeting; the actions above were procedural votes and a referral for further study. The commission continued scheduled discussion of other charter items and set follow-up dates for committee work.

Votes at a glance:
- Motion to rule Feb. 27 vote on proposed Amendment 13 out of order: roll call 7 no / 5 yes / 3 abstentions (chair continued to old business after the roll call).
- Amendment to proposed Amendment 6 (make prosecuting attorney nonpartisan) to take effect at the next regular election (2026): passed 12 yes / 2 no / 1 abstain.
- Main motion to send proposed Amendment 6 (as amended) to the ballot for voter consideration: failed 14 to 1 (tally reported by the chair).
- Referral of proposed Amendments 10 and 11 to a Committee of the Whole to be scheduled within 30 days: passed 13 yes / 1 no / 1 excused.

The commission will consider the Committee of the Whole’s findings and any redrafted language before placing charter changes on a ballot or making further procedural rulings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Whatcom County Charter Review Commission Meeting 3.13.2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Whatcom County Charter Commission met March 13 in Blaine and recorded several formal actions on pending charter amendments, including a failed effort to send the prosecuting attorney nonpartisan measure to voters and a referral of salary proposals to a Committee of the Whole.","taxTitle","Whatcom County, Washington","taxId",2976,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6278512,"Public and commissioners press commission to fix audio, room capacity and access at traveling meetings",0,1472000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640842-7065e75bfad5b45003d13fafeee779c6&start=1472&end=1472","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640842-7065e75bfad5b45003d13fafeee779c6/thumbnail_1472000.jpg","/articles/6278512/Whatcom-County/Washington/Public-and-commissioners-press-commission-to-fix-audio-room-capacity-and-access-at-traveling-meetings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278512-d3d8c67d29088c4f12de691f75d202fd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770546288&Signature=DFWW2hKcT~G0l8vKT~W1EmI14vQN21omAIKVuaamHH~9r3LU0eEQT5mML93aWu45H76OBUt0yVfUyIJRyyroRYIyIgSNwoBqtkioIrZf9LYNUlY~iwbsO0QGbOJH776WvVLltYX6g8ya0jTvMo4xw7KgD8OX3~rx9b8p5MJ8JaNrPXuGzTjvEuzN40Vsnl2ZTB6qq6oT96QfVUU95a3PyXGmgvsFpXE7R1cjo5XaAY93mX65K911wdqNA1dXRHOiIc0lJR6mEu39krgHz8qLLWIUnr4EQ8TjuCUb9B55eIQIbwtmPzAsl55rZ4BihVLs7J~XjFizBc4FQe3h97JtOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During public comment and again near the end of the March 13 session in Blaine, attendees and commissioners raised repeated concerns about meeting accessibility, sound and venue choice for the commission’s traveling meetings.

Several speakers said online attendees could not hear the meeting and that in-room audio was inconsistent. One public commenter told the commission, “people online can’t hear you guys at all,” and asked the commission to “find a better solution” for remote participants. Other attendees said the venue was crowded, that some people stood outside for long periods because there was not enough seating, and that emergency egress and fire-code issues merited attention.

Commissioners acknowledged the complaints and urged staff to book future off-site sessions only at locations with an adequate sound system and sufficient capacity for expected attendance. Commissioner comments ranged from asking staff whether additional county-owned microphone systems were available to recommending that meetings return to council chambers if off-site venues cannot consistently provide required audio and seating. The commission also noted offers from local organizations that have community centers or sound systems for future meetings.

The commission did not adopt a formal policy change at the March 13 meeting but directed staff to pursue practical fixes—finding venues with built-in audio systems, considering procurement or temporary rental of microphones and confirming fire-code capacity—before scheduling future traveling meetings.

Members of the public who described difficulties said they would follow future agendas and that better audio and seating would increase participation from residents across the county.","Multiple members of the public and commissioners told the commission on March 13 that room capacity and audio quality at off-site meetings are preventing effective public participation and asked staff to prioritize sound systems and accessible venues when scheduling future sessions.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6278517,"County executive urges stricter petition thresholds, other charter edits during commission presentation",393,3772000,4165000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640842-7065e75bfad5b45003d13fafeee779c6&start=3772&end=4165","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640842-7065e75bfad5b45003d13fafeee779c6/thumbnail_3772000.jpg","/articles/6278517/Whatcom-County/Washington/County-executive-urges-stricter-petition-thresholds-other-charter-edits-during-commission-presentation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6278517-30017e572a4fe859d04fdabcb7a889b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770546288&Signature=HoxolLLhQ6qH2XtjAqZ~nt3JKkYYu5qMnQhg2Y-R1dBQCKu7oOH05pTXu7R9iYjhbwsruRo0~SDBTmX0NQyt5sHQnEjUtXQJKINjrjvA6-u00vkdS4mBflb2Oib5g1ftzmMe1SJzI8qd1yhPWhUgyVDf1j4o06OTKdSTj3NqclpNK~9t6D4UqzgSHlpEkLDCcpXIWWIi5BIWLX15IgtMOmcQ3nkNL02FTvRp~l8n-8YfJ74lt2m-lglksUo8554vPd285eNjde2sp5DJoh8ngbZ2XcE750cd3ZBDQi8-qWobYYhYu9ygdhpDRO9GD7KnRKgBGbF~PAvr49JF6LpMGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County Executive Sealy addressed the Whatcom County Charter Commission on March 13, urging several revisions to how the county’s charter can be amended and to technical governance provisions.

“The charter should not be easy to change, but at the same time it should not be difficult to change,” Sealy told commissioners during a roughly 20-minute presentation. He described the charter as a long-term governance document distinct from the county’s operational policies and proposed clarifications to reduce what he said were ad hoc or localized amendments driven by small groups in densely populated areas.

Sealy proposed several specific changes and clarifications for the commission’s consideration:
- Replace the Whatcom Medical Society role in nominating medical examiner candidates with oversight by the public health advisory board, reflecting organizational changes to regional medical associations.
- Require that public-initiated charter amendment petitions gather signatures across county districts rather than concentrated in a single population center: Sealy recommended signatures from each county district to increase countywide awareness before a measure is eligible for the ballot.
- Raise or clarify signature thresholds for different initiative types: Sealy suggested a 15% threshold tied to votes in a prior executive election for full charter amendments, with an additional requirement that at least roughly 10% of signatures come from each county district; for smaller (mini) initiatives he proposed raising the minimum signature share and suggested 8% as a possible threshold.
- Allow the county council to make limited technical updates by a supermajority (for example, five of seven members) where charter language has become obsolete, rather than requiring unanimity in every instance; he framed this as avoiding an effective veto by a single council member on routine modernizing changes.
- Require proponents to supply a concise narrative (suggested 250 words) to accompany petitions so signers can see a standardized explanation of the change before they sign.

Sealy said those changes would protect county taxpayers and reduce costly, divisive campaigns that he described as often organized from densely populated parts of the county without broad countywide outreach. He also said the charter’s signature-benchmark provisions should not be changed without awareness of how benchmark election turnout affects signature thresholds.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about process and consequences. Commissioner Morales noted that petitions already include full text on each petition sheet under state law, and she asked whether district-based signature requirements would give specific districts veto power over countywide initiatives; Sealy responded that he saw district distribution as a safeguard against takeover of countywide rules by small, concentrated groups.

Sealy characterized his suggestions as proposals for the commission to consider, not finalized amendment language. The commission did not vote on the executive’s proposals at the March 13 meeting; the items moved into the commission’s old-business calendar and were available for further drafting and committee consideration.

The executive provided written answers to advance questions and supplied a longer submission that the commission included in the public packet.","At the March 13 meeting the county executive presented proposed charter edits — including requiring petition signatures from across county districts, moving some appointment authority, and easing certain technical amendments — and urged balance between making the charter stable but not rigid.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Charter commission records multiple procedural votes; measure to make prosecutor nonpartisan fails

Public and commissioners press commission to fix audio, room capacity and access at traveling meetings

County executive urges stricter petition thresholds, other charter edits during commission presentation