The lone voice of dissent

Posted

One of the things I appreciate most in politics, local or otherwise, is the lone voice of dissent. We got to witness such an occurrence this past week by a member of the Battle Ground City Council.

At their July 15 meeting, members of the Battle Ground City Council voted 5-1 to approve a rather peculiar resolution that changes the way the council will select a mayor. Mike Ciraulo was absent from the meeting and among the remaining members of the council, only Adrian Cortes voted in opposition of the resolution.

It seems far too often in local politics that councils or boards are consistently divided in the same way with small groups or pairs of members always voting the same way, regardless of the issue. The current Clark County Board of Commissioners feels that way, at least since the last election, as Steve Stuart has often found himself out-voted 2-1 by Tom Mielke and David Madore. In this past year, I believe I’ve earned more respect for Stuart  than in all his previous time as a commissioner.

My admiration doesn’t have anything to do with ideology or party affiliation. I don’t mind saying that I’ve always leaned a little to the right and have always considered myself a Republican. However, I strongly believe that political affiliation has no place in local politics. That’s why I found the entire fiasco among Clark County Republicans over former Commissioner Marc Boldt to be ridiculous.

Years ago, I went to Woodland to attend a Chamber of Commerce meeting where then-U.S. Representative Brian Baird was to speak. Baird, a Democrat, was certainly not someone who I would have considered myself aligned with ideologically. But, it was obvious during the meeting, in which he delivered a speech and then took questions, that Baird was likely the most intelligent, and obviously the most-informed person in the room. The experience made me appreciate the institutional knowledge our leaders, both national and local, acquire in their roles as elected officials.

So, on a matter that the Battle Ground council members essentially rubber-stamped, I appreciate Cortes being the lone voice of dissent. The council chose not to follow its “three touch practice,’’ which calls for them to bring a resolution back three times and hold a public hearing before voting on it. Battle Ground City Clerk Kay Kammer explained that the council members weren’t required to do that with this issue, but is that really the litmus test? Should they only follow the practice when they have to?

This new policy makes no sense to me for many reasons. First of all, to use a math term, it doesn’t allow for variable change. Every two years, the council members will elect a deputy mayor with the knowledge that person will automatically proceed to the position of mayor the following term. That is, unless the voters decide not to return the deputy mayor to the council. What if the council member in question appears to be a worthy candidate when elected as deputy mayor and then proves not to be during the following term?



Also, the policy wreaks of backroom politics. Current Mayor Lisa Walters said “I think it’s important for everyone up here to be able to step into the role of mayor.’’ I strongly disagree. What’s important for the citizens of Battle Ground is for the mayor to be the person on the council who is the best candidate for the role. I know it’s largely a ceremonial position, but it shouldn’t be taken this lightly where all the members of the council just pass it around like they’re sharing a common chore. It might be ceremonial, but it’s still the highest leadership position in the city, even if it carries with it only the same one vote enjoyed by every other member of the council.

It’s also more than a little unsettling that the perceived champion of the new policy is Shane Bowman, the current deputy mayor. So, now Bowman is in line to become the next mayor, even though his fellow council members didn’t know they were making that decision when they elected him to be deputy mayor at the beginning of the past two-year term.

Cortes said he believes citizens in Battle Ground are confused as to the process of selecting a mayor. I agree with him and I don’t think this helps that. I also believe the citizens of Battle Ground are largely apathetic about who is tabbed as mayor and I don’t think this decision helps remove that apathy.

So, both as a matter of principle and policy, kudos for Cortes for being the latest lone voice of dissent.

Ken Vance

Editor