[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6200436,"mediaKeyId","3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46","parentId",3813804,"title","Ranked‑choice proposals for county and Charter Review Commission elections fall short amid heated debate","audioSeconds",1681,"startMs",9739000,"endMs",11420000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46&start=9739&end=11420","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46/thumbnail_9739000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6200436/Whatcom-County/Washington/Rankedchoice-proposals-for-county-and-Charter-Review-Commission-elections-fall-short-amid-heated-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200436-9292e9d55c2d1abd7e0375e7ae19616a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770505528&Signature=THl0Yawfzoobpe1yonBKRLNTum1Qc9bzMyTYVV6W6WR7GjAr5SR2tx5qCpEfOeth~aGhSjRBLX0f430PSHYP7rycICEDuflcyWcH5aUoa3GpbKa30Mr9rGdlRd5Sheh4KA4m8Y5D0AIrOw9BG0oHaW3WwJG~sRaxaanV50LZh67DUQc65KoHrunCEI6HOu7C0bMWoiRMuSdSZjQjFijvoaqquLpnFdX0vIAbEpdnbni4S1QfQnsTLgQmAUrjap5PCYxGYH0YtJgY9jB9gENNUiXsR5e8cuF8f1rSkJcUUuKRwVpb4AEiXtEUBaQ-4hrhlB0MRcZTDp~FYZC9tHCP4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Whatcom County, WA","date","2025-06-13T16:46:28Z","article","Two separate proposals to introduce ranked‑choice voting (RCV) in Whatcom County were debated on June 11 and both failed by narrow margins.

Amendment 31 — a broad proposal cosponsored by multiple commissioners — would have implemented single‑winner ranked‑choice voting for applicable races and proportional ranked‑choice voting for multi‑seat contests, eliminated primary elections where state law permitted, and reorganized county council districts (moving from five single-member districts plus two at‑large seats to three multi‑member districts electing three members each).

Amendment 32 was a narrower, pilot‑style measure to use RCV for Charter Review Commission elections with a null‑and‑void clause giving the county council an off‑ramp if implementation proved fiscally or operationally infeasible.

Both measures generated substantial public input on both sides. Supporters said RCV reduces wasted votes, increases turnout, and yields more proportional representation — points emphasized by Alan McConkie of FairVote and local advocates. “One voter, one vote,” McConkie said, arguing the Charter Review election format (block voting) can produce unrepresentative outcomes and that RCV would help minority viewpoints win representation.

Opponents called RCV confusing and expensive and cited recent statewide defeats for RCV ballot measures in other states. John Westerfield told the commission he believed jurisdictions that tried RCV later abandoned it and that voters in several states had rejected it.

Commission debate reflected the division. Supporters argued RCV would address concerns raised earlier in the meeting about at‑large seats and minority representation; detractors questioned pilot costs, potential voter confusion, and whether the commission should send such a substantial procedural change to the ballot without clearer implementation details.

The commission held recorded roll calls on each amendment; both measures failed 8–7. Commissioners who opposed the amendments pointed to the need for more public education, clearer implementation plans, or alternative reforms such as proportional systems adopted through different mechanics.

No charter changes on ranked‑choice voting were advanced at this meeting. Sponsors said they may pursue further study and outreach before bringing revised language back to the commission.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Whatcom County Charter Review Commission Meeting 6.12.2025","oneSentenceSummary","Two related charter amendments to adopt ranked‑choice voting — a comprehensive change for county elections and a pilot for Charter Review Commission races — were both defeated 8‑7 after extended public testimony and commissioner debate.","taxTitle","Whatcom County, Washington","taxId",2976,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6200441,"Charter commission backs stronger financial reports and performance audits; executive reporting requirement added",1996,7908000,9904000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46&start=7908&end=9904","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46/thumbnail_7908000.jpg","/articles/6200441/Whatcom-County/Washington/Charter-commission-backs-stronger-financial-reports-and-performance-audits-executive-reporting-requirement-added","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200441-bc673b3c9919f529de409a46a354ef3d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770505528&Signature=DEn~ccd6F8eOsZCXZjvP5BsWMTIB8agWPkzzPuMko1Vd4Ienhd-2Er7YrF713naKO2rHO8413qFuoonVdW2VpelokTE86qZT8Arop03gxx7d7ApR6mqvHFsJ7hg9El3dH4IL2odSV~1qhSVHcZH-iUJeAG4W28AR6GcbrEXYENijtZaVHHwkzxxwgmFtvipvdGuG1nu8tkeY2mRwsxSd8Lhb3mTN1c30uAhtjkMNFWa~CfQB197pflwRAy2TKcc3m0jQSvquBm1qEyUNxFgxr0MREsfLlfMmUYyyHHSMc5zy9TGdY5S~DR7NsbqK-IB4qufBXNmqqXflCabxXuEdGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Whatcom County Charter Review Commission voted unanimously to refer two transparency measures to voters on June 11: stronger quarterly financial reporting to support council appropriation decisions and a performance‑audit process to evaluate county programs and identify savings.

Amendment 25, sponsored by Commissioners Joel Pitts‑Jordan and Jennifer Wright, would require the executive branch to provide quarterly reports on cash flow, revenues and expenditures to inform supplemental appropriation decisions by the county council. Pitts‑Jordan said the council must have reliable fiscal data before making supplemental appropriations, otherwise members risk unknowingly creating future deficits.

Amendment 26, on performance audits, drew public support from Elise Garvey of the Association of Local Government Auditors, who told the commission that independent performance audits “play a key role in effective governance and public accountability” and recommended following generally accepted government auditing standards.

The final language the commission approved includes a clause directing the county executive, beginning Jan. 1, 2029 and biannually thereafter, to report back to the council on implementation of approved performance‑audit recommendations — including achieved cost savings and the expected return on investment. The commission adopted that last sentence as a friendly amendment during debate to clarify accountability and tracking of audit outcomes.

Commissioners emphasized the intent was not to create a separate full‑time office but to authorize contracted performance‑audit services and, where appropriate, in‑house capacity managed to generally accepted auditing standards. Sponsor Joel Pitts‑Jordan noted that other counties use a mix of contracted and in‑house audit capacity; Snohomish County was cited as an implementation example.

The motion to send both amendments to the ballot passed 15–0.

Commissioners said they expect the performance audits to identify inefficiencies and long‑term savings; Pitts‑Jordan cited national examples where performance auditing returned multiple dollars for each dollar invested. The charter change would require follow‑up reporting so voters and the council could track whether recommendations were implemented and savings realized.","Commissioners approved amendments requiring quarterly financial reporting to support supplemental appropriations and authorized independent performance audits (contracted) with a biannual executive report on implementation of approved recommendations.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6200446,"Commission splits on pay, salary limits and reimbursements for county officials and charter commissioners",1396,3049000,4445000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46&start=3049&end=4445","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46/thumbnail_3049000.jpg","/articles/6200446/Whatcom-County/Washington/Commission-splits-on-pay-salary-limits-and-reimbursements-for-county-officials-and-charter-commissioners","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200446-971da000f3e580d6ee78d500e778cb1b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770505528&Signature=KzYdsOU6ZA3a2s1H-fYZqoC3tXSubBANYDmJUxQUJzkn~ZNIAJ~MdcWxTdxfN3201W--zXSPy2oub3zuXWkFz73WWFHBxUuF9v9R4NriRIoY-33icO117H7gMecDdJPaCmRWgBwEPQnZHqMWgB1f4Iwr7OC9ZbVhJPdKd-wd67VEuFS5PttPdhJlJBaJawwmokUM1sqvmeWK8FtfNOJM3NNCZeGFKVwyZtRENL2fYgoC10pAp-AHAyjxauq2J~xyIuTTYOsyYgY3cB8GDe6LXCeIkH~VHrVBzkGSWi-5ip~TCJFKeue6tN~A9Lm-oQfv88~yckmqPbVyNLAM4StPPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Whatcom County Charter Review Commission took several separate votes June 11 on measures addressing pay, salary-setting, and reimbursement for elected officials and the county’s Charter Review Commission.

A proposal from Commissioner Andrew Redding to cap certain county officer salaries by tying them to the highest published salaries among charter counties under 2,000,000 population passed by a recorded vote that the clerk summarized as 7 in favor, 6 opposed and 2 abstentions. Redding urged the change as a guardrail against steep increases set by the independent salary commission, saying the county’s salary levels had grown “out of line” with comparable counties.

The commission considered several companion measures addressing pay and compensation for elected roles:

- Amendment 11, from Commissioner Maya Morales, would have allowed future charter review commissioners to receive salary for their service; that motion failed on the roll call, recorded as 12 to 3 against. Morales argued paying commissioners would improve access to service and align with Washington’s recent Equal Pay and Opportunity Act.

- Amendment 15, proposed by Commissioner John Mechler and intended as a values statement directing the salary commission to ensure pay is “fair, modest, and reflective” of the time commitment, failed 8-6 with one abstention.

- Amendment 16, which would have authorized travel and other reimbursements for charter review commissioners (and was amended on the floor to substitute the word “salary” for the word “compensation” in one sentence), passed the interim wording change by 13–1 with one abstention. However, the commission later voted on the final referral and the motion to send proposed amendment 16 as amended to the ballot failed 8–7 with one commissioner excused.

During debate, commissioners and members of the public raised practical questions about implementation. Commissioner Morales asked whether salary or part‑time/prorated language would force full-time benefit packages; sponsors said the salary commission would interpret prorating and benefit thresholds under applicable law. Commissioner John Mechler warned that changing caps on base salary without addressing total compensation (health insurance, deferred compensation, cash-outs for unused leave) could leave a path for offsets through benefits.

Public comments included an anonymous letter from county employees (read into the record by Commissioner Redding) urging scrutiny of top-level pay and arguing that past increases had strained other department budgets. Commissioners questioned the letter’s anonymity but noted similar workplace concerns had been raised in other forums.

No immediate ordinance or administrative change was enacted; the commission referred Redding’s salary-cap amendment to voters but did not advance the other compensation items at this meeting.

The votes split along differing views about fiscal restraint, equity, and practicality of implementing pay changes through charter amendment versus relying on the existing independent salary commission.","The commission advanced a charter amendment limiting salaries for county officials but rejected related measures to change how the charter review commission and other elected officials are paid or reimbursed; votes were split across multiple proposals.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6200451,"Whatcom Charter Commission narrowly rejects plan to eliminate two at-large council seats",1687,1436000,3123000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46&start=1436&end=3123","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3813804-cce14d1be1a89a2c9947a3d53925fe46/thumbnail_1436000.jpg","/articles/6200451/Whatcom-County/Washington/Whatcom-Charter-Commission-narrowly-rejects-plan-to-eliminate-two-at-large-council-seats","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200451-ad521ec2f85d65f05a05cf09fe3cc068/orig.mp4?Expires=1770505528&Signature=nfgHt1XRZ8mwftpVVqAk~kNNBl4DEHxsljuyr1UGhbGZF9lsHD9j-RHUoL-dhHhekJsVxYx~iSfauutdvSaP7WGgJgI3cnfJiPEQyzSLarPS0oymD~Kb9YYM5NLpGu-Q8gSwN~T7~23uE8r2uZ6w0VN9nzCjnzMBPNGw4~pFggvtCdJfVLFKgMQ9W~9dJ0GsvslANTAC8D5YbPCHydKOivuF8n8TYT2OtU0u4NupX1TOZXMhmkf26RlUqYs--5NtYY757b9a9SeaT-ieD-YbSoc5ibFeQDR40CbUR48S-10p9~MWA37s0aVR6rR136RDYwJ3O78PnDLXT1pnb3N0Gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Whatcom County Charter Review Commission debated and then rejected a proposal to eliminate two at-large county council seats and move to district-only representation, voting 8-7 on the measure on June 11.

Supporters, led by Commissioner Joe Ellenbos, argued the at-large positions give disproportionate influence to Bellingham residents and cited policy differences between urban and rural residents. “It’s about what unfair and inappropriate activity is taken by a commission where the majority of the folks reside in Bellingham,” Ellenbos said during discussion.

The proposal drew lengthy public comment. A resident supporting the change said half the county’s population lives in Bellingham and asked whether the system should represent “people or acreage.” Other public speakers and several commissioners urged a more comprehensive fix — such as proportional voting or different district lines — rather than a simple removal of at-large seats.

Commissioners who opposed the amendment argued the current proposal, in a winner-take-all system, could reduce representation for sizable political minorities. Commissioner Andrew Redding said he would back a truly proportional system but not the amendment as written, calling district-only, winner-take-all a risk to minority representation.

The roll call produced a close result. The tally recorded in the meeting was 8 against, 7 in favor; the motion failed.

The commission’s discussion also touched on related fixes: several commissioners and members of the public urged exploring proportional or ranked-choice methods and larger multi-member districts to preserve minority representation. Commissioner Maya Morales said she supported proposals that keep representation local but also make election results proportional to the county’s voters.

No legislative change was adopted; the amendment will not be placed on the ballot.

The commission moved on to other amendments after the vote and scheduled additional discussion on related reforms at future meetings.","The commission debated removing two at-large seats from the county council and shifting to district-only representation, then voted 8-7 to reject the amendment after extensive public comment and commissioner debate about representation and proportional voting systems.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Ranked‑choice proposals for county and Charter Review Commission elections fall short amid heated debate

Charter commission backs stronger financial reports and performance audits; executive reporting requirement added

Commission splits on pay, salary limits and reimbursements for county officials and charter commissioners

Whatcom Charter Commission narrowly rejects plan to eliminate two at-large council seats