Whatcom County charter review commission approves transmittal memo format after signature dispute

Chair Liz Darrow, chair of the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission, told members the body would vote on a memo to the County Council that transmits the commission’s recommended charter amendments for placement on the November ballot. "We will be voting on the commission's memo to the county council, which conveys our amendments to the auditor for inclusion on the November ballot," she said as the discussion opened.

The commission’s packet showed a new format that lists every commissioner’s name at the bottom but provides only two signature lines. Supporters framed that as a compromise reflecting collective work without forcing members to sign items they opposed. Commissioner Andrew Redding said he was "perfectly willing to put my signature to the work of the totality here recognizing that you don't always get everything that you want." Commissioner Rod Stump objected to signing, saying, "I'm just gonna ... I'm not gonna sign this, because there's 2 of those I'm strongly against, and I want nothing my name not associated with either of those."

Why it matters: the memo is the formal transmission step from the charter review commission to the county council and then to the auditor for ballot placement. How the commission presents itself—whether every commissioner’s name appears and who signs the document—became a proxy dispute over endorsement and recordation of the commission’s work. The commission discussed precedent, recordkeeping, and legal requirements, noting that recordings are part of the public record under the Open Public Meetings Act.

After debate and roll calls on several proposals, the commission approved the version that lists all commissioners’ names at the bottom and leaves two signature lines for the chair and vice chair. A staff summary recorded the outcome as "That motion passes 13 yes, 1 no, and 1 excused." The commission later approved, by unanimous voice consent, a separate motion asking council to receive and transmit the commission’s amendments to the county auditor.

The meeting record shows commissioners considered several procedural alternatives—including having only the chair and vice chair sign and having no names listed—and that the first proposal (only chair and vice chair lines, without listing names) failed 7–7 with one excused. Commissioners also discussed whether the commission should reserve the ability to reconvene in September; multiple motions and amendments on that point were debated but did not produce a binding, time-certain commitment before the meeting closed.

The commission concluded the business items and approved administrative steps including delegating approval of some minutes to the chair and setting deadlines for pro/con statement submissions. The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.; a final roll call recorded the adjournment motion as passing 14 yes and 1 excused.

What’s next: staff will finalize the transmittal memo consistent with the approved format and transmit the commission’s packet to the County Council for receipt and onward transmission to the county auditor, which will review ballot titles and explanatory language for administrative compliance.