Like many folks in my age group, I often don’t sleep well. And, on those restless nights, I’m often frustrated by the fact that nothing was gained from my restlessness. However, my inability to enjoy a consistent night of slumber on Jan. 29 actually led to something productive.
Regrettably, my schedule did not allow me to attend the Jan. 13 C-TRAN board meeting. I wanted to be there. I knew I should be there. But, I wasn’t. As expected, it was yet another monumental night in the legacy of Clark County’s public transportation provider.
As I temporarily gave up on my effort to sleep on the aforementioned night last week, I turned my television on in those wee hours of the morning. I’m a dinosaur in many ways, so I still flick through the channels trying to find something to watch. I stumbled on CVTV’s replay of the Jan. 13 C-TRAN board meeting. It was truly remarkable viewing, and I’m not being sarcastic.
The C-TRAN Board of Directors seated a new set of members in the meeting, reducing Clark County’s seats on the board from three to two. The action stemmed from the results of a 10-member special composition review committee.
I really don’t even know where to begin with the abundance of absurdities that C-TRAN and it’s Board of Directors are mired in right now. I will try to be as brief and concise as I can be.
It’s ridiculous that the board members have taken a seat away from the Clark County commissioners, or councilors as they are now known as in our post-Charter world. As two members (Carol Levanen and Susan Rasmussen) of the Clark County Citizens United pointed out during citizens’ comments at the Jan. 13 meeting, the Clark County councilors represent 64 percent of the residents C-TRAN represents, more than twice that of the City of Vancouver, which retains three seats on the C-TRAN board.
What’s more ridiculous is why the county’s representation on the board has been reduced. Board members, C-TRAN officials and members of the special composition review committee can spew any nonsense they want. There is one simple reason why the seat was taken away. The three current Clark County commissioners – Tom Mielke, Jeanne Stewart and David Madore – have proven to be loyal to the will of Clark County voters over the special interests of C-TRAN leadership and board members.
The majority of Clark County residents (voters) have opposed light rail for decades and that’s still the case today. There has also been a clear majority of residents (voters) who have shown their opposition to C-TRAN’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program. Yet, it’s clearly the agenda of C-TRAN leadership and the majority of the Board of Directors to move forward with BRT.
I had lunch last fall with C-TRAN Executive Director and CEO Jeff Hamm and Scott Patterson, C-TRAN’s director of development and public affairs. Both are extremely accomplished, educated and capable individuals.
At one point during the lunch, we touched on the third bridge issue that Clark County has and will continue to deal with. Hamm, and I’m paraphrasing, said matter-of-factly that as a public transportation guy he doesn’t see any point in building a bridge that doesn’t have a light rail component. Patterson has spent several years of his life and career working diligently on the BRT program.
Maybe saying light rail and BRT is their “agenda’’ is a little strong, but I’m convinced it’s their educated belief that light rail and BRT is what’s best for Clark County and I think they’re very comfortable stating that. And, I’m very comfortable that their insight and expertise is greater than mine so I allow for the possibility that they are right. However, the majority of Clark County residents (voters) disagree on both issues and so do I.
I’ve shared with you before in this space what I believe to be the disproportionate amount of tax revenue that C-TRAN collects from Clark County residents, the majority of whom are having their tax dollars begrudgingly stripped from them from folks who have shown no interest in honoring their will.
Does the C-TRAN leadership, folks like Hamm and Patterson, have a responsibility to honor the will of the majority of area residents? We could debate that. They’re not elected by the public but they do lead the agency that receives a great deal of revenue from our pockets.
What’s not up for debate, in my opinion, is the obligation of the members of C-TRAN’s Board of Directors to follow the will of the people, just as the three current Clark County councilors are doing.
I thought Vancouver City Councilor Jack Burkman’s comments at the Jan. 13 meeting were laughable. Burkman painted the Clark County councilors as uncooperative members of the board and claimed that they continually obstructed C-TRAN’s attempt to conduct its business. How can a board member who ignores the will of the voters who live in the boundary served by C-TRAN attempt to chastise Mielke, Madore and Stewart for doing what he won’t?
Several citizens passionately spoke at the Jan. 13 meeting. Carolyn Crain said she was “disgusted’’ with the actions of the board members. Margaret Tweet said the board members were “robbing’’ the citizens of their representation. Mark Engleman said “this place is on fire’’ and that there “is a lot of anger’’ out there. Josephine Wentzel said the board had “silenced’’ the voice of the people. Thomas Hahn called for the end of the “tyranny.’’ Rasmussen, a La Center resident, said she felt like “throwing tea in the Columbia River.’’ I agreed with all of those citizens.
There’s a threat of a lawsuit by the county. I will leave that to be sorted out by those more equipped for such matters than I. I will just simply say that it’s demoralizing, disheartening and disgusting that we have elected officials who put their own agendas and special interests above the citizens they represent.
Ken Vance
Editor
