Whatcom County panel deadlocks on removing two at‑large council seats; public divided

The Whatcom County Charter Review Commission’s committee of the whole debated whether to eliminate the county’s two at‑large council seats and reduce the county council from seven members to five, but the group split 7–7 on a recommendation to send that change to the voters.

The amendment’s author presented the history behind the proposal and public commenters urged both support and opposition. Proponents said eliminating the at‑large seats would save money and produce fairer geographic representation outside Bellingham; opponents said at‑large seats help countywide cohesion and protect minority voters’ interests.

The proposal matters because it would change how county residents select their council members and could shift which voters determine council majorities. Supporters framed the change as a return to “one representative per district” and a cost‑saving measure; opponents said it risks leaving significant portions of the county without effective voice on countywide issues.

Commissioners and members of the public debated multiple arguments over more than an hour. Resident Eric Gordon urged broader structural change, saying the county’s current seat structure functions “like a board game” that frustrates voters. Natalie Chavez, who identified herself as a lifelong Democrat during public comment, urged rejection of ranked‑choice voting and argued for elimination of at‑large seats only if the change would increase conservative representation in the county. Mark Stremler, a longtime resident, told commissioners: “I would ask you to set aside parties… and think about what is fair. Five districts, five council members.”

Opponents included Rachel Newgen, who told the panel she was “in opposition to amendment 9” and said that at‑large seats encourage council members to reach across neighborhoods. Alan McConkie, representing FairVote locals, urged commissioners to consider proportional systems and ranked‑choice voting as an alternative to simple removal of at‑large seats.

Commissioners pressed legal, demographic and process questions. Several members discussed whether alternative configurations — for example, converting the two at‑large seats into regionally drawn at‑large positions (north/south) or expanding to seven single‑member districts — would be legally and practically feasible under state redistricting rules. County legal counsel present said he had not reviewed the amendment in detail and could not opine on potential challenges.

At the end of the discussion Commissioner [maker not specified in transcript] moved that the committee recommend to the commission sending the amendment to voters. The motion was seconded. A roll‑call vote resulted in 7 members voting yes and 7 voting no with one member excused; therefore the committee did not carry a recommendation to the full commission.

The commission also heard background from former commissioners and from Commissioner John Muschler, whose written statement (provided for the record) argued for the change on efficiency and parity grounds and estimated annual savings in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another witness, who identified himself as Joe Ellenbos, said he supports the proposal; other commissioners urged exploring proportional voting alternatives instead of a straight reduction in seats.

With no recommendation from the committee, the full Charter Review Commission will next consider whether to place amendment 9 on the ballot in its upcoming meeting cycle. Commissioners said they remain open to compromise options that would try to preserve countywide representation while addressing concerns raised by rural and unincorporated voters.

Votes at a glance Amendment 9 (remove two at‑large county council seats; reduce council to five): committee recommendation vote — 7 yes, 7 no, 1 excused (motion failed to carry).