Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

SOulman wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2023 12:34 pm .The disparity likely would be in the order of 4:1 town versus unincorporated residents. Some people would consider this to be undemocratic taxation without representation.

Also consider that our County commissioner represents the residents of Twisp and Winthrop
as well as people who live outside those towns.It could be argued that there is no one person entirely representing the 70% of us who live outside those two towns.

The draft interlocal agreement states that the MPD board can hire cooperate officers, which is a strange addition given that a MPD already has the power to hire employees.

Those corporate officers will likely be highly paid positions that voters have no control over.

More reason prop 1 is flawed. Vote no.

I didn't catch that!

The actual measure states...

The District would be governed by a five member board appointed by the Okanogan County Commission and the Twisp and Winthrop Town Councils as provided by interlocal agreement approved by the three jurisdictions.

and note that "appointed" means UNELECTED...

The article was wrong about the composition of the district's governing board.

I visited the MVNews office about noon to talk with Don, but he had just stepped out. Here is what I wrote him.


Don -

The paper is barely on the newsstands and people are writing to fact-check the lead article this week.

Paragraph four states how the proposed aquatic district would be governed by a five-member board. The composition of the board (county commissioner, town councilors and at-large appointments by the two towns) is NOT part of Proposition 1 language. It is simply what the proponents would like the board to be. There is NO interlocal agreement in place at this time. Repeat -- there is no interlocal agreement in place and one would only be considered if the measure passes. Speculation about membership and governance of the district is just that, speculation.

This seemingly small detail concerns many people. For example, if the board's composition were established as suggested a majority of the district's population and a majority of the district's assessed value would be underrepresented by a county elected official or appointed board member. The disparity likely would be in the order of 4:1 town versus unincorporated residents. Some people would consider this to be undemocratic taxation without representation.

The damage is done. Another of the proponents' mischaracterizations has entered the civic discourse. Nobody can put the genie back in the bottle.

Respectfully,

Steve Oulman

Article on Proposition 1 was balanced and fair. Three letters to editor against, one for. Against wins again...