Lots of Good, Some Bad, and One REALLY UGLY story of KMJC’s follow up of Local Politics
So, we break down the stories by having 3 good outcomes, 1 bad outcome, and 1 that should really make you furious.
THE GOOD — Story Number 1 – Kitsap County Did the Right Thing
In our previous story regarding the resignation and retirement of Kitsap County Sheriff John Gese, we made the prediction that Brandon Myers, the current Democratic candidate for Kitsap County Sheriff, would be selected to replace John Gese as Interim Sheriff and enjoy a political boost of that incumbency.
However, the Kitsap County Commissioner instead chose retired Lt. Ken Dickinson to serve as Sheriff until after the election. That was the right call. It takes the appearance of a stacked race off the table.
We were wrong in our previous article about predicting Myers was a shoo-in for the appointment. We could make excuses, but that is not how we work. We commend when politicians do right and condemn when they do wrong, no matter what their political leanings and acknowledge when we get things wrong.
The benefit to the Democrats? If Myers wins, he can say he won it on his own merits.
THE GOOD – Story Number 2 – Sheridan Homeless Site
Our second good news comes from our previous story regarding how Bremerton Housing Authority wants a zoning change on a property in Bremerton for a temporary homeless shelter. The Bremerton Planning Commission held a public meeting and heard from both sides for more than two hours.
Advocacy groups came with their prepackaged stories: This is for the elderly and families. Crime does not go up near these facilities. Not having it will cause unnecessary deaths. These shelters have a proven record of getting the homeless back into society.
The Sheridan Community Alliance brought a different argument. They argued most users of this kind of facility are single men, ages 20 to 55, many with serious mental illness or addiction issues. They cited higher assault risk for women and children, statements from Bremerton Police and the Kitsap County Sheriff about crime around these sites, and data that most people who enter temporary shelters do not exit into permanent housing. They did not just bring anecdotal stories and slogans, they brought evidence.
The Staff at Community Development office also had their own concerns and recommended that the Planning Commission not approve the rezoning request.
In the end, the Planning Commission voted to recommend NOT approving the request.
Now, before you get too excited, that vote does not kill the project. The City Council can still approve it. Given how some members have already talked, they still might. A planning-commission no just makes that harder to hide.
That’s what happens when residents show up with more than slogans.
THE GOOD — Story Number 3 – Renaming 8th Street in Bremerton
Our third and last piece of good news, and this one may surprise you.
There was a push to rename part of 8th Street in downtown Bremerton “Bishop Robertson Way,” for the late Bishop Larry Robertson — a pastor and community builder a lot of people loved.
Council sat through more than two hours of testimony, mostly from church members and organizations that worked with him. They wanted the full and legal change of the street. They were opposed to an honorary renaming.
Then council did something we don’t always see – they listened to the people who actually live on that street.
Residents that would have been impacted by the change would have had to change every address — banks, license, emergency records, legal Wills, and every digital service provider. They overwhelmingly said no in an email campaign to the council and it ran heavily against the proposal. The Council also said a legal rename would cost government agencies tens of thousands of dollars. Whereas when streets were named after Martin Luther King, there was much less impact on both residents and the city.
In the end, they chose the honorary naming of the street. Bishop Robertson gets the honor. Residents get to keep their address. It was one of those decisions proponents won’t like, but that they still can get most of what they were seeking. Several of the proponents did applaud at the end, indicating that they accepted the outcome as satisfactory.
We’re usually first in line to criticize a council that ignores the room. However, we do feel that the council made the right decision in this particular situation. They sided with the people who have to live with the change.
That’s how representative government is supposed to work.
Now this is where we get to the Bad.
This occurred in the other half of that same meeting.
A Sheridan Community Alliance leader was in city offices when Councilmember Jennifer Chamberlin confronted her. She swore at her and tore into her in front of city staff.
Initially, there was confusion about process. The parliamentarian said the public only gets to speak on discipline if there’s a motion and a second. The City Council, to its credit, did work out an arrangement to let people talk first. However, in doing so, they unwittingly tipped their hand because it provided an insight that what was to follow had already been predetermined.
You see, unless they had already decided that they were not going to even make a motion to take action (censure, fine, remove), then the natural assumption would be that public comment would take place. They were obviously caught off guard by the revelation that a motion and a second were needed for public discussion and, by having to scramble for public speaking before a motion was heard, made it clear what their intentions were prior to the meeting starting.
When considering the evidence in the complaint, the actual admission by Councilmember Chamberlin, and the clearly written rules that were violated, the absolute minimum action that should have been taken was at least a motion and a second that Chamberlin be censured for her actions. THAT should have been the assumption. As such, their actions showed that they intended a public show, then take zero action.
The public commentary was filled with comments that indicated the outrage and indignation the public felt about Chamberlin’s actions.
Only Councilmember Anna Mockler moved to censure. Nobody seconded it. Not one. That means the rest of the council decided her conduct wasn’t even worth a debate. Let that sink in. Then, after the motion was dead, they lined up to say how appalled they were. That’s not accountability. That’s cover.
If that was not bad enough, it would get even worse. Chamberlin, even when confronted by the other council members, refused to even apologize to the individual. She regretted the situation but steadfastly held that she was in the right for her behavior. Anyone reading the complaint could see that her actions were unprofessional, unethical, and out of order for a member of the City Council. That she would be allowed to get away with both the action and her response is just mind blowing.
The jaw dropping comment, however, came when Councilmember Denise Frey said she wouldn’t second a censure because the last time the council censured anyone was for sexually harassing young women. Really? That’s the bar? If that’s the bar, the code of conduct is nothing more than a meaningless prop.
This is why citizens mistrust government. When you put partisan politics above the rules that you created, you have earned that mistrust.
Now, while that story was about a bad outcome, we still need to get to the ugly part of our stories that we are following up on.
We told you about the contention regarding Port Orchard Councilmember Heidi Fenton and her resignation of her council seat along with the blowup that followed (please read the previous article for the whole story). Here’s the update.
At that public meeting, the city council, seeing the overwhelming public support that Heidi Fenton had, indicated that they would be willing to have another public meeting to go over the details and give their evidence about the process.
That meeting never happened.
Instead, the council quietly conducted interviews, and, on August 6th, they appointed Tiffiny Mitchell to Fenton’s seat. She was sworn in the next day. “Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along”
They did get a second legal opinion many in the public meeting demanded. However, the attorney that Mayor Putaansuu decided to hire, Hillary Evans, serves as a city legal counsel for other Puget Sound cities. People at the meetings asked for something different: a litigation lawyer — someone who actually tries wrongful-removal cases. That’s not who they hired. It is important because an experienced employment litigator would start with different questions: Was the statement unequivocal? Was it made under threat in a closed session? Does Monroe actually fit? Did accepting a resignation inside executive session violate the Open Public Meetings Act? Evans’ professional experience is the same as the Port Orchard attorney. In other words, someone to rubber stamp their decision.
If this were really about protecting the city, they had two cleaner options.
One: get that independent litigation opinion.
Two: if a vacancy was real, let the Kitsap County Commissioners appoint the replacement, so it didn’t look like the same council picking its own teammate.
They did neither.
What’s done is done. If Fenton sues and wins, Port Orchard taxpayers write the check. That is the part nobody on that dais will have to feel in their own wallet.
So that’s the scorecard.
Bremerton’s planning commission heard the Sheridan neighborhood and recommended no.
Bremerton’s council honored a bishop without wrecking people’s addresses.
Then that same council couldn’t second a censure after one of their own berated a constituent.
And Port Orchard filled a council seat with someone they wanted and threw out the people’s choice.
Good. Bad. Ugly.
Elections have consequences. If you don’t like what is going on with your local politicians, join with KMJC and work with us to fight for better government, better communities, and better outcomes.
Integrity, Accountability, and Representation.
Leave a Reply