The Board of Clark County Commissioners is at its rawest during “board time,” the weekly Kaffee Klatsch-esque meetings where a triumvirate of men resembling castoffs from a repertory theater production of “Grumpy Old Men” gathers to kvetch.
It’s the place where a millionaire and the two other guys who run the county offer each other backhanded compliments and make passive aggressive digs at each other. It’s their time to set the direction for county business. They do it at a pace slightly slower than global warming (a topic I’m sure has come up during board time because it’s the sort of off-topic conversation piece that fits squarely in the commissioners’ wheelhouse). Lest you think these meetings are all business all the time, they’re not. In fact, they’re seldom business much of the time.
A conversation that could easily take five minutes will devolve into a lengthy aside about the federal government’s intrusion into people’s personal lives. Topics that have been covered ad nauseam at previous meetings are often prolonged, as commissioners ask questions and argue points that have already been answered and argued in the past.
Despite every board time meeting standing out as a veritable child’s treasury of impressive displays of political posturing, some stick with you. Take for example the commissioners’ last meeting on Wednesday, in which the county sages, particularly Commissioner Tom Mielke, were in rare form.
First, the meeting started with a discussion of commissioner salaries. Readers of APIL may remember that just last week Commissioner David Madore proposed reducing the District 3 seat’s salary to $83,000 a year starting in 2015, followed by the District 1 and 2 seats in 2017.
There was no mention of that proposal at Wednesday’s meeting, likely because there was no way Commissioner Tom Mielke would allow salaries to drop below $100,000 a year. Instead, commissioners settled on a schedule for their pay that calls for the District 3 seat’s pay to drop from roughly $106,000 to $104,224 in 2015 and 2016, and then to $102,224 in 2017. The District 1 and 2 seats would also drop to $102,224 in 2017. This all presumes voters don’t approve the home rule charter, which would expand the board to five seats and drop salaries, except the chairman’s, to $53,000 a year.
That conversation led into a discussion about what the commissioners receive in the form of a monthly vehicle reimbursement. Right now, it’s $700 a month.
And that’s when it got interesting.
Mielke wanted to increase the amount to $800 a month. But Madore disagreed, saying he’d prefer lowering it to $600 a month. The conversation, edited for brevity, went like this:
Madore: That’s getting up there, Tom. That’s a month.
Mielke: (In) 2017, the price of gas will probably be $6 a gallon.
Madore: Well, I will follow your lead.
Mielke: We gave up all our mileage. We used to have mileage and a car allowance. We gave that up …. You see, this is in lieu of having an issued vehicle.
Madore: It is. I will go along with whatever you two commissioners want to do, but I will voice my preference on this. This is per month, and I think you can lease a car for less money than this. I just look at what the city of Vancouver did by giving that raise to its top-level management and what message that sent to everybody else. That was the wrong message. To me, this seems like, man, that’s way up there.
Mielke: But you have to say, that’s also my gas bill. My gas bill, if I divided it in half for just me, would be $200 a month.
Madore: Yeah …but we’re talking about going from $600 to $700 to $800 per month. That’s a lot of gas. I’m going to back up on this. I can’t vote over $600 a month.
Mielke: The alternative is to have an issued vehicle with a credit card.
Eventually, the commissioners decided to freeze the reimbursement at $700 per month, but Madore continued to lightly protest.
Madore: Well, with your two votes this already happened.
Mielke: It’s unanimous then!
Madore: it is, but I just want to communicate that I have reservations.
Mielke: I hear where you are, but one thing I want to be clear on is we’ve given up a lot, and the true expense, I think it reflects that. By the time I make car payments, buy my insurance and buy my (unintelligible) …
Ed Barnes: I spend that much just heading up to Yacolt Mountain!
But there you have it. Without an extra $700 a month, there’s no way the commissioners could possibly afford their gas, let alone owning a car.
Later in the meeting, County Administrator Mark McCauley mentioned that the commissioners would have to participate in a mandatory training session regarding public records and meetings. Mielke balked at the idea. “How can they (the state) require an elected official do that?”
“How can they?” McCauley said. “By passing a law.”
And that is exactly what the Legislature did this year. Senate Bill 5964 is designed to improve transparency in government and reduce lawsuits by requiring that elected officials take refresher courses on the state’s Open Meetings Act.
Mielke likened the new training to mandatory diversity training he had to take. It sounds like a traumatizing experience. “I knew I was going to flunk that with flying-A colors,” Mielke said.
That begs the question: How do you “fail” a training seminar unless you go into it with the mindset that you disapprove of the topic? One thing is for sure: Despite Mielke saying the county is “ahead of the curve” when it comes to record keeping, the county has been lax about announcing closed-door executive sessions. In May, Nancy Krier, the state’s assistant attorney general for open government, said the commissioners could probably use a refresher on the Open Public Meetings Act.]]>
Many politicians can’t resist a good ribbon-cutting ceremony.
Elected officials get to swoop in at the end of a major project and share the spotlight in the friendliest of settings. They say a few kind words, smile for the cameras and perhaps take some credit for an effort they had little to do with.
Wednesday’s ceremony marking the end of the Salmon Creek Interchange Project did not disappoint. More than a dozen speakers took the podium. Of the politicians, a few were even around when the program that helped fund the project — the 2003 “Nickel” gas tax increase — passed the state legislature.
Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, praised the work that he and others did “in a bipartisan fashion” to make the project happen. The project stands an example of “bipartisan and bicameral” cooperation, he said.
One problem: In 2003, Benton voted against the gas-tax package that paid for it. So did then-Rep. Tom Mielke, who sang the project’s praises Wednesday as a Clark County commissioner.
It should be noted that Benton voted in favor of a project list that included the Salmon Creek interchange — but not the five-cent gas tax hike to fund it. Mielke voted against both the project list and the gas tax.
The other state lawmakers present for Wednesday’s event weren’t in the legislature in 2003. But the project location touching three different legislative districts meant more dignitaries than usual got to participate in the back-patting.
It’s unclear how many of today’s legislators would have supported the 2003 gas tax package, or the even larger version that passed in 2005. A push for a new transportation funding package has come up empty during the last two sessions, with divisions mostly falling along party lines.
If a new package does materialize, it will be a hard-fought battle in today’s political climate. But you can bet politicians from both parties will still line up to cut ribbons in 10 years.]]>
Yesterday I posted the pro and con statements for the third bridge that will be in the voters guide – but I didn’t include the rebuttal statements. Of course there are rebuttal statements. And here they are:
Rebuttal to the statement for the bridge: “People who say this third bridge is a viable option are either delusional or deceptive, or both.”
Rebuttal to the statement against the bridge: “Son, we live in a world that has bridges. And those bridges have to be built by men with vision. Who’s gonna do it? You, Paul Dennis? You, Jack Burkman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the Columbia River Crossing and you curse Don Benton. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the CRC’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that bridge. You need me on that bridge. We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ‘em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very critical infrastructure I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way.”
Just kidding, and apologies to Aaron Sorkin. Here are the real rebuttal statements:
Rebuttal to ‘Statement for’:
The “Statement for” is filled with false, misleading information. It’s a sales pitch filled with generalities and ‘promises’ that can’t be honored.
There’s no “beautiful environmentally sound design” – only a few incomplete artist drawings. Any financial firm can lend money, but we pay for it – plus interest and profit.
Approving this advisory vote takes the power out of citizens’ hands and says Commissioners don’t need to give you real facts and information.
Rebuttal to ‘Statement against’
These same defeatist arguments were made against our toll-free I-205. They claim we can’t afford this, so build the much more expensive CRC.
The billions paid in annual state gas taxes for our roads can build this bridge like they did for our I-205.
The naysayers fear that this project will be too successful and carry too much traffic. Your participation is key to our community’s success.
For full design and financial plans, see www.EastCountyBridge.com]]>
After all the hand-wringing about who was going to write the pro and con statements on the bridge advisory vote for the voters guide, the wait is over. Sure, the election is still more than two months away, but you can read the statements about a proposed third bridge right here, right now:
First, the statement in favor, written by Port of Vancouver Commissioner Jerry Oliver, Clark County Commissioner David Madore and John Ley, failed legislative candidate.
UPDATED PRO STATEMENT FOR ADVISORY VOTE 1
Last November, Clark County citizens voted “yes” to explore a toll-free East County Bridge across the Columbia River and “no” on the CRC Light Rail Tolling project. We now have a beautiful environmentally sound design that meets all voter approved specifications and a commitment to complete all permits and construction within five years upon approval. Our bi-state community can now choose to support or dismiss this opportunity starting with Clark County citizens.
The I-5 Bridge is certified as structurally sound. The CRC required a $450 million down payment from each state. Tolls were required for additional billions in debt service and to meet local match requirements for federal light rail funds. The East County Bridge total cost is less than the CRC bi-state down payment alone and eliminates all costs that require tolls. A financial firm has committed to back the project with flexible terms if desired.
Congestion relief is provided by adding a third toll-free crossing, not by funneling more traffic into existing congested Portland chokepoints over a light rail toll-bridge-too-low that hinders river navigation and harms our marine freight corridor. We built our second toll-free Columbia River Bridge thirty-one years ago, the I-205. It’s time to build our third toll-free bridge to better connect our fast growing bi-state community with a smarter, less expensive, and faster solution.
Page ___ of this Voters’ Pamphlet shows the resolution that supports this vision. See www.EastCountyBridge.com for the design and information to cast an enthusiastic “yes” vote for our third toll-free bridge.
And now the statement against the bridge proposal, written by Vancouver City Councilor Jack Burkman, Paul Dennis, former Camas mayor and executive director of the Camas-Washougal Economic Development Association and Molly Coston, former Washougal City Council member.
STATEMENT AGAINST ADVISORY VOTE 1
No real financial plan – this proposed bridge is not free – it requires a new tax
The proposed finance plan is “the states of Oregon and Washington will pay for this.” That’s no finance plan! This violates last year‘s advisory vote which said bring it back to voters “once there is a clear project defined, including the financing plan”. And asking you to spend nearly $1.0 billion but not telling you where the money is coming from is financially irresponsible. We can’t afford the upkeep of our existing roads today – any new bridge will require a new tax.
No fix for any of today’s transportation problems
Adding a third bridge won’t fix any I-5 congestion or long-term safety issues and it does little to help I-205. SR-14 and 192nd Ave are not designed to accommodate the additional traffic. The proposed four-lane bridge drops into Airport Way, but with NO connection to Portland’s major highway system. This is like having a bridge end in the middle of East Mill Plain. There will be traffic gridlock at both ends of the bridge.
No public involvement
There have been no public meetings, no discussions with community leaders or citizens of Vancouver, Camas, Washougal, Troutdale, Gresham, or Portland; those most affected by the plan. This is a private plan developed in secrecy by a private individual, then released as a vision on July 25.
No real financial plan. No real fix for our roads. No public involvement. Vote NO!
Visit www.NoEastClarkCountyBridge.org to see more.]]>
It’s been a little over a year, and Commissioner David Madore is still talking about what kind of a salary it takes to live a “meaningful” life. But now we have Commissioner Tom Mielke talking about what it takes to be a “quality person.”
Longtime readers of APIL may remember that last year, during a discussion of legislator salaries, Madore said it was impossible to live on $50,000 a year, which is roughly what state lawmakers make when you factor in per diems. “I mean, you can’t live off that salary,” Madore said.
He added: “Kinda hard to live off that for Clark County and be in some kind of a meaningful position where you’re contributing to the people around you.”
Keep in mind, the median income for a household is $48,376, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It’s safe to assume that many of those people contribute to the people around them. So for many, Madore’s remarks came across as a bit tone deaf.
Of course, Madore has in the past criticized how government salaries are too high. He’s like the Goldilocks of government pay, in that he doesn’t want salaries to be too high, nor too low, but juuuuust right. He gave an idea of what that was earlier this week.
At Wednesday’s board time meeting during a discussion of commissioner salaries Madore proposed cutting the pay for one of the seats to roughly $83,000 a year. Initially, that pay cut would only affect the District 3 seat, currently held by Ed Barnes. The seat — for which Jeanne Stewart and Craig Pridemore are currently campaigning – receives annual pay that’s a smidge over $106,000.
The reason Madore was looking only at the District 3 seat, he said, was because it was currently up for a salary review. The goal, he added, was that all three commissioners would make the same amount by 2017.But you might wonder: Why such a big drop? Madore said it was because there were a lot of people in the community who’d feel lucky to make $83,000, and the commissioners should lead by example by taking less money.
That’s a fiscally responsible position to take, for sure. But with Madore, there’s always a logic puzzle lurking in his rhetoric, impossible to unravel, along with the faint scent of political posturing. It shouldn’t be lost on observers, then, that Madore is proposing the pay cut now, as county voters prepare to cast votes on whether to switch to a home rule charter (which would drop pay to $53,000 a year).
Here’s Madore in his own words: “(I’m proposing) $83,000, which is still $30,000 above the recommended $53,000 that the charter is proposing. The charter presumes – because I looked at the source of this – that it was to be a half-time position, a part-time position, so that’s why they cut the salary in half. But then they removed the language in the final version, but kept the half-time salary there.”
Barnes balked at Madore’s proposal, saying it was too drastic of a cut to take seriously and an inequitable one to boot.
“But then you’re discriminating against that person compared to Tom because Tom is going to make the full salary for two years,” Barnes said, referring to Commissioner Tom Mielke.
After all, the salaries for the other two seats would remain locked into their current level for the next two years. It should be noted the other two commissioners don’t receive the entire amount, however. Madore cut his salary by 20 percent and currently receives around $84,000 a year. Mielke throws a few thousand dollars to local charities.
There’s another way to interpret Madore’s sudden desire to cut the commissioners’ salaries, and that’s as a political move in light of the home rule charter that will appear on November’s ballot. Madore has been a critic of the proposed charter.
But then there’s Mielke, who has made it known that a drop in salary would “suck.” He, like Barnes, was also not keen on cutting salaries by 20 percent. He suggested a lesser reduction that would keep salaries above six figures. Doing so would ensure that “quality” people ran for county commissioner, he said.
That’s an illustrative remark. One might take it as a small glimpse into Mielke’s mind. It implies that people run for office for a paycheck. And not just any paycheck — a six-figure paycheck. Now, I don’t mean to psychoanalyze the commissioner — Lord no — but in therapy they may call this an act of “transference.”
Without the necessary votes to move forward, Madore smiled and said they should all do some homework — look at what other counties pay their commissioners — and then come back for another discussion.]]>
Scanning through city council emails the other day, this phrase caught my eye: “port-a-potty vigilantes.”
The line was in a memo to City Manager Eric Holmes from Julie Hannon, director of parks and recreation, and shared with the city council. Obviously there had been questions about whether the city could or should install a portable toilet in each neighborhood park.
For those of you who have better things to do with your life than think about how local government defines amenities, a “neighborhood park” is one that’s within one-half mile of every residence, or a 10-minute walk. The city has 60 developed neighborhood parks.
Unlike larger parks, neighborhood parks do not have restrooms.
According to Hannon’s memo, she’d been asked to list pros and cons of having one portable toilet in every neighborhood park.
Hannon could only come up with one pro, the obvious one: “Provides a location for park users to use facilities. These are especially handy for children, who tend to lack pre-planning abilities,” she wrote.
And then Hannon listed the cons:
1. On-going costs for placement, rental and on-going cleaning services. If port-a-potties were placed in all 60 developed neighborhood parks, the total rental and servicing cost would be approximately $264,000 annually*.
This figure does not include “extra-call out for service” at $150.00 per call for vandalism or unit replacement.
*Based on one ADA unit per park, $150.00 per month
2. Because only one unit will be placed at each park, the unit is required to be an ADA unit. These large units often provide ideal locations for overnight transient stops or illegal and nuisance behavior.
3. Cost to lock up port-a-potties at night. Per experience, in City of Vancouver and at other cities, these generally need to be locked at night, to avoid supply theft/vandalism. The cost for this service is not included in the above fees.
4. Staff has, when port-a-potties are locked, experienced a few port-a-potty “vigilantes” who have cut locks or vandalized in protest on them being in the parks. These acts can (and have) included: tipping over units, burning units or jumping on units. If the company needs to come out to fix and repair a unit, a call-back charge is added to the monthly rental, or sometimes unit replacement costs are applied.
5. These units often smell and the smell can spread to the surrounding area. Hence, port-a-potties are sometimes not welcome near residential housing.
Based on Hannon’s memo, don’t cross your fingers hoping the city will decide to install a portable toilet in every neighborhood park. Or should I say cross your legs?]]>
Following a couple of recent instances of telephonic governance, the C-Tran Board of Directors is considering setting new rules on how — and how often — board members can call in for meetings.
A C-Tran board member has participated in a meeting by phone on two occasions this year. Former County Commissioner Steve Stuart phoned it in for his last C-Tran meeting in April, and Washougal City Councilor Connie Jo Freeman called in last month. (Both meetings, coincidentally, involved key votes on bus rapid transit.)
At its meeting last week, the board discussed a draft policy that would limit phone participation to two times per year for each member. One possible version of the rule would allow electronic attendance only under certain conditions, including if that board member’s alternate is also unable to be there in person.
The proposed rules drew a mixed reaction. Freeman said board members should be able to bring their experience to meetings even on rare occasions when they’re not able to attend in person.
“The fact that we’ve served on these boards and we have the history, and we just happen to be out of town through no fault of our own, I really would like to see that we’re able to (participate) on the board if we’re physically able to,” Freeman said.
Six of the board’s nine voting members have alternates. The three county commissioners, and the board’s non-voting labor representative, don’t. Roy Jennings, the labor representative, said he’d prefer to see other members’ alternates sit in if someone is absent.
Jennings pointed out that Freeman phoned in for last month’s meeting while her alternate, Camas City Councilor Greg Anderson, sat in the audience. If board members are allowed to call in as they wish, Jennings said, “why do we have alternates?”
In general, sitting C-Tran board members bring a better perspective than their alternates, said County Commissioner David Madore.
“Some of these issues and some of these projects have a lot of depth to them and a lot of history, and realistically, the alternates are not tuning into all those conversations,” Madore said. “The continuity we can bring, a more informed participation, is important.”
“I would think it would be better to allow the board member to decide what they think is appropriate,” Madore added.
Ridgefield Mayor Ron Onslow has frequently pinch-hit for La Center Mayor Jim Irish in recent years. Yacolt Town Councilor Lewis Gerhardt has also sat in for Battle Ground City Councilor Bill Ganley.
C-Tran doesn’t currently have written policies on phone participation in meetings. The board didn’t take any action last week.
All board members, by the way, were there in person.]]>
Clark County’s economic indicators appear to be on the rise, tracking similar state and national trends, according to the county’s second-quarter report.
The report is filled with ups and downs, as one might expect, as the economy continues to rebound with the county’s budget lagging a bit farther behind.
Unemployment in Clark County has dropped to 6.4 percent. By comparison, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is 6.1 percent, and both are below the Federal Reserve’s target of 6.5 percent. Retail sales between June, 30 2013 and June 30 2014 increased by 9.2 percent, while taxable retail sales in unincorporated areas jumped 8.7 percent. Median home sales have seen a jump as well, from $235,400 in the first quarter of 2014 to $244,000 in the second quarter of 2014.
Keep in mind, the county is tracking along a parallel path with other counties in Washington, so it’s not as if Clark County is doing well independent of other jurisdictions. “Sales tax receipts for most Washington counties have improved,” the report states.
The county also employs fewer people now than it has in the past, a sign for some that the county is doing more with less. In the current budget, there are 1,659 positions, a 16-person decrease from 2011-2012. The good news for the county’s economic growth hasn’t necessarily translated to county departments, however. Development service permits are still low. For the first time in two years, permit revenue from single-family housing did not cover the full cost of operations, according to a county presentation.
REET receipts have also slowed and are now behind budget for the biennium. And then there’s the facilities budget, which continues to operate at a deficit. The fund is currently $104,000 in the red.
The county concludes that the economic indicators are inconsistent, with increases to retail tax revenue driven primarily by construction, a historically volatile industry. According to the report, five economic trends have improved, four have gotten worse and 20 have stayed the same.]]>
Clark County Commissioner David Madore has a shiny new website dedicated to his east county bridge idea. Too bad there are parts of it that nobody can read.
Unless, that is, you read Latin. Even then, it’s nothing but gibberish.
The new website has gone live and, while the landing page is in English, the page outlining the project’s “vision” is a garbled mess of Latin. It’s filled with what’s known as “dummy text” — Latin words that have no meaning that typsetters use to punch-up empty space. The new website dedicated to the east county bridge appears to be replacing an older, bare-bones version of the site, which went live last year. Most of the information on the page is similar to what appeared on the older version, with the addition of references to FIGG Engineering Group, the Florida-based bridge design firm that presented its proposal for an east county bridge in July.
The webpage’s domain name is registered to MotionNET Inc., a company Madore owns.
The words — the English ones, at least — closely mirror the language Madore has been using in public meetings to sell the project, which, at this point, remains his to sell. He neglects to mention on the website or elsewhere that before the project moves forward, it will need the OK of Oregon partners, including the Port of Portland, the city of Portland and Metro, none of whom have expressed interest. Then there’s the city of Vancouver, where five of the six city councilors and the mayor have said they would not issue the necessary land-use and street permits for the bridge.
The four-lane bridge would extend from Southeast 192nd Ave. over the Columbia River, cross Government Island and land at Airport Way in Portland. An advisory vote asking residents whether they want the county to pursue the project will go before voters in November, so Madore is working to sell it as an alternative of sorts to the Columbia River Crossing.
We know what a bureaucracy with $200 million and a dozen years cannot do. It is refreshing to see what the private sector can do in months, at zero cost. They will deliver a complete design for a ready to build toll-free bridge that includes everything, start-to-finish, with a guaranteed price under $900 million.
So the talking points are there. But it appears Madore has more ambitious plans for the website than for it just to be the hosting ground for his bridge boosterism, so it’s curious that something so incomplete would go live. It’s not the sort of thing that instills a great amount of confidence among people who are looking for answers about the project. I’ll keep monitoring the website in the coming days and weeks to report what Madore replaces the dummy text with.
If he replaces it with anything. Once translated, it’s pretty entertaining. And it may even contain a hidden message or two.
This can be a fun, pretty easy. Wow, now I need to compare. No drink or use the arrows to push the advantage. Airplane tank kits, chemical regional football soccer television. I really, except high school, the guys it would be nice to be honest, the keyboard of life around the world. No, my mass, customers and the (???) that, it’s just not right now. I’d storage, various unseemly, planning a program aimed at one-time. Rather, it’s pain or the soft environment from the across the country, nor the near future. It’s free and life is in the UK, however, the consumer, and to help you. But Iraqis are expected to push domestic life, but always the winner of revenue. Unfortunately, I hate to put a gate element of the bed sheets. Wow, either before, a value that law enforcement and, in the main, but the package. Until funny laugh, but it’s just not available, the consumer or salad. But a sustainable economy.
– Caesar Madorius
For those who may have seen this Facebook post by State. Rep Liz Pike …
and wondered what resolution she was talking about, I’ve posted a link to it below. I don’t believe the resolution will actually be brought to a vote, however. Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt sent an email Friday to councilors with a draft resolution, and hasn’t heard enough support to merit putting it on an agenda.
From: Leavitt, Tim
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 9:06 AM
To: Larry.Smith@cityofvancouver.us; Burkman Jack; Hansen, Bart; Turlay, Bill; McEnerny-Ogle, Anne; Topper, Alishia
Subject: CRC Thank You Resolution
Good Morning Council,
Attached please find a copy of a proposed resolution regarding the CRC, brought forward by Bob
Schaefer. After an initial meeting with Bob, and then subsequent conversation, I asked him to make contact with council members to present this document and ask for your input.
Bob has indicated to me that each councilmember he has spoken with and presented this document to is supportive.
If this is the case, please respond back to me (no need to REPLY ALL) that you are interested in placing this resolution on an upcoming agenda for discussion and action.
Timothy D. Leavitt| Mayor
From APIL’s perspective, it’s too bad if the resolution doesn’t go to a vote. It’s not just a “thank you” resolution. It’s a passive aggressive way of showing Clark County Commissioner David Madore and the Madoristas that the Columbia River Crossing wasn’t, as Madore calls it, a “top-down” project, as it lists every group involved in the years-long megaproject and all of the CRC supporters. Including city of Vancouver voters, judging by this paragraph:
“WHEREAS, in November 2013 Vancouver voters re-elected Mayor Tim Leavitt and Councilman Jack Burkman, and elected Councilwoman Alishia Topper and Councilwoman Anne McEnerny-Ogle, selecting them over candidates, including one longtime incumbent, who had declared their opposition to the CRC,”
Obviously, we here at APIL encourage passive-aggressive resolutions, such as when Madore and Tom Mielke trolled the city council by passing a resolution defining “integrity” and then mailed it to 341 people, as if they cared. I mean, if public officials focused on setting policies that moved the community forward – what would we have to blog about?
By the way, we all know what Leavitt did with his copy of the integrity resolution.
As promised, here’s a link to the 22-page draft resolution.
Modified copy of CRC Resolution]]>