Andy Estep Speaks Rhetorically to DuPont City Council
ByAfter the Council debate over the city funding “donation” (in exchange for levy support) of the Steilacoom High School reader board, citizen comments was next on the agenda. Andy Estep spoke briefly regarding 1994 Settlement Agreement revision.
Bear in mind that Mr. Estep just sat through the spirited and somewhat passionate discussion regarding child safety, lunatics roaming the streets of Lakewood, and adherence to the DuPont Strategic Plan. It was a plea to talk about real city business, if only for a few minutes.
We have been hearing for months about the MOU and the proposed revision to the 1994 Settlement Agreement and council is being asked a rather simple question regarding their vote on the proposal. Will they consider citizen input, as you would assume, since they are elected representatives of the people of DuPont. Of course, there may be a minority of council members who mistakenly believe that they were elected to govern based on their wisdom and what they consider is best for the city of DuPont. The former method would require canvassing a wide cross-section of citizens for their opinions and concerns; while the latter would require a vote based on their own will; perhaps from prayer, an Ouija board, or several gin and tonics.
Only they know how to breathe from within a vacuum.
The mayor promised that the legislative process that will be used by council will be posted on the city web site, but to date there is nothing as described by her request online. However, since no agreement has been presented to the city, we will just have to wait.
However, I will offer this space to council so that they may solicit their input on the matter. Interested council members can submit to me their written opinions, illustrative materials, and interpretation of the revised agreement. The pay off would be the direct feedback of the five people who still read this site.
I won’t hold my breath for this – just as I won’t waiting for a “Mayor’s Message”: http://www.ci.dupont.wa.us/mayor-council/mayor-message.html
“Soon” is now going on a couple of months madam.
She checked out months ago.
The same thing will happen as has happened to the questionaire. We’re told we’re going to make changes and then opps it fell in the deep dark hole. I think we need to change our form of government so the mayor will not have all the influence and do things her way.
I have a bad feeling about this settlement agreement.
Citizens need to speak up and let council and the mayor know how they feel about the 94 Agreement and how they feel about protecting DuPont’s wetlands, aquifers and water supply.
Council voted in 2009 to enter into this comedy act of re-negotiating the settlement agreement. Ironically the topic of discussion quickly turned to Edmond Marsh, which was the biggest bone of contention in the staff report over CalPortland’s mine expansion. The City wouldn’t admit to it, but the enivornmental groups did and that has been the FOCUS of this renegotiation. So much for being transparent. The 94 Agreement has a tangable public beneift, and frankly the outcome of any renegotiation is something tax payers will have to live with for as long as they live in this city. I want to see council do more than a weekly Saturday morning “drive thru the neighborhood” to gain public opinion on a topic this important. (Yes Penny Coffey, I’m talking about you) Council, do your job. Mayor, wake up and smell the coffee. Citizens, this is our city and we have a right to take it back from the numbskulls running it. You don’t have to be bought out by CalPortland.
They are required by law to listen to us.
Washington State Public Meetings Act
RCW 42.30.010
Legislative declaration.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30.010
The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]
Is it time for pitch forks & lit Tiki torches up at city hall? Maybe then they’ll listen to us?