Citizen-initiated recalls of elected public officials are extreme — and occasionally necessary — reactions to conduct that is so contrary or damaging to the public interest that it must be immediately remedied by throwing someone out of office.

We don’t think that the actions of Sedro-Woolley Mayor Mike Anderson, as related to the Deluxe Recycling and Disposal dispute, rise to anything like the kind of malfeasance or corruption of public duty that would warrant the recall petition recently launched against him.

A recall is an instant and visceral plebiscite that inevitably will leave scars — and may not even achieve the desired result. The mayor is but one public official and doesn’t unilaterally control anything.

We understand the frustration of many Sedro-Woolley residents over the way the city has handled an application by Deluxe to build a garbage processing and recycling center near the high school. The level of resentment has boiled over to outrage for many people who believe that their elected and appointed public officials have ignored their concerns and protests in favor of a cushy business deal.

While city officials have sometimes characterized the controversy as a building permit discussion, it is of course more than that — and has mutated into something whose significance is well beyond the siting of a recycling center.

Our observations about the Deluxe proposal have focused on two issues: The perception by some residents that process has been skirted or subverted to the detriment of citizen participation, and that however laudable the Deluxe proposal might be, it must fit logically with an overall waste management plan for the county.

A recycling center might benefit Sedro-Woolley but make an efficient countywide system more difficult to achieve. The process question is something for the courts to work out now. The countywide waste management planning issue has yet to be satisfactorily addressed by Sedro-Woolley.

All that said, the movement to recall Anderson seems more personal than political. The mayor has been a lightning rod, as mayors often are, for the most vigorous objections to the proposal.

Disagreeing with public officials’ actions is one thing, and can ultimately be remedied at the polls. But even intense dissatisfaction with public policy must be accompanied by evidence of egregious misbehavior by the targeted official. However one feels about Mayor Anderson’s decisions, a recall has the appearance of over-reaching.

n Editorials reflect the consensus opinion of the editorial board and are written by its members: Publisher L. Stedem Wood, Editor Don Nelson and City Editor Dick Clever. Signed columns reflect the authors’ viewpoints.

The way I read the article about the recall was that the signators of the recall petition had a problem with city officials not listening to the “PEOPLE” of his city.  The “PEOPLE” (voters) do not want a recycling center inside the town.  Is that justifiable enough for you.

Come now, jevernew, as the only publishing company in the Skagit Valley, these guys have a stranglehold on the molding and shaping of public perception and what is deemed as “news.” From what I have observed, for anything with political overtones, the paper, itself, is largely one big editorial.

For instance, there was no coverage of the PUD’s fluoridation hearing at Burlington-Edison High School. Then again, this should be no surprise. In her own words, Washington Dental Service Foundation’s former CEO, Tracy Garland, spoke to the Grantmakers In Health in November of 2005, The community organizing phase [in 2003] led to earned media including letters to the editor and op-ed pieces in the Skagit Valley Herald. Some members of the strategy group met with the Herald’s editorial board, the result being an unequivocal endorsement of the fluoridation campaign. The public fight had been engaged.

Two weeks ago, I had a letter to the editor rejected because—get this—I have posted the information here at GoSkagit previously. How many people actually read from this site? And since when did posting at an online forum disqualify a person’s First Amendment Right to see the information in a newspaper’s print edition? In my opinion, this is censorship. I submitted nothing libelous or inflammatory. I merely quoted Washington State Law, which has been violated with impunity by two county commissioners.

My letter to the editor:

Both Don Munks and Ken Dahlstedt have spent well over a year avoiding any public exposure of their violations of State Law — violations that in fact vacated their offices on January 3, 2005. RCW 36.16.060 states clearly, “Every county officer, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall file his oath of office in the office of the county auditor . . .” According to the minutes for the first County Commission meeting of 2005 on January 3rd, both Munks and Dahlstedt were present. The Oaths of Office for Munks and Dahlstedt were not taken/signed until a week later on January 10th.

RCW 42.12.010 also states in no uncertain terms, “Every elective office shall become vacant on the happening of any of the following events: (6)His or her refusal or neglect to take his or her oath of office . . . within the time prescribed by law.”

To anyone who believes that this is a mere technicality and is unworthy of pursuit, an Attorney General’s Opinion from April 16, 1963 clarifies the issue. John J. O’Connell wrote, “Our supreme court has held that the occurrence of an event designated in RCW 42.12.010 occasions immediate forfeiture of office and creates a vacancy. State ex rel. Guthrie v. Chapman, 187 Wash. 327, 60 P.2d 245 (1936); State ex rel. Zempel v. Twitchell, 59 Wn. (2d) 419, 367 P. (2d) 985 (1962).”

These two should have been booted as soon as this came to light. However, Rich Weyrich has refused to enforce State Law and honor his own Oath of Office, which overrides any obligation he has to defend them. The Attorney General’s Office has expressed interest in the case, but the Governor’s Office has denied them permission per RCW 43.10.090.

Call and remind Chris Gregoire of her Oath of Office.

The response:
DON:
Most of this information has been posted by you on our Web site and/or asserted before, with no official reaction. If there is an official proceeding that gives the issue some currency, we will report on that.
Best,
DON NELSON

No official reaction?

There have been at least four replies from Will Honea, the Chief Civil Deputy in Weyrich’s office. Since the Revised Code of Washington involves criminal law, it is “unclear” why Weyrich’s office dispatched Honea to address the matter. Regardless, the best he could produce in defense of the impostor commissioners was State ex rel. Lysons v. Ruff, 4 Wash. 234, 29 Pac. 999 (1892), which Mr. O’Connell stated was case law that had “lost [its] virility with the passage of time.”

Evidently, allowing this matter to be reported properly scares a number of people, so it must be suppressed to avoid any “official proceeding.”

Wow ~ has anyone seen this!

In this capacity, I met in late October 2007 to discuss the project with personnel including Supervisor Eron Berg, Planning Director John Coleman, as well as Deluxe permit consultants John Abenroth and Marianne Manville-Ailles, and Deluxe principal Steve Snell. At this meeting, City Supervisor Eron Berg suggested that we quickly submit a building permit in order to vest ahead of regulations likely to be changing in the near future.

Deluxe had two basic plans in dealing with Sedro-Woolley. The first was to open an electronic waste recycling facility exempt from various solid waste permitting requirements, and then push the facility as a “fait accompli’, i.e., a solid waste handling
facility for which environmental review was complete. The second basic strategy was to quickly obtain a hastily-drafted MDNS and then later exploit loopholes in various instances where the conditions were arguably vague or unenforceable. This latter strategy Deluxe has actually pursued, and has taken measures to defeat what I understood to be the City’s intent in the MDNS.

It is my opinion, based on my experience working on this project, that Deluxe has llttle intention to comply with the City’s intent in the MDNS conditions. It is also my view that Deluxe has little regard or concern for the High School and its
students, nor for the City and its citizens.

http://www.ci.sedro-woolley.wa.us/Home/documents/publication_notice/Deluxe_Recycling/20080829_Declaration_of_Simpson.pdf