+menu-


  • Category Archives Public Servants
  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

    Concerning fatal errors in due process, not posting SMP public comments

    Omitting SMP public comments and a failure to provide  complete and accurate

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

    Failure to notify interested parties (WRIA 20 shoreline property owners  and members of the advisory committee on SMP meetings)

    Failure of CLALLAM COUNTY government to provide  critical early and continuous public participation in to the SMP Update

    The purpose and intent of nearly a year of inactivity on SMP public meetings and  participation on the SMP Update? A cooling off period, if  we ignore them for a year maybe they will just go away?

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

    Failure to provide public outreach  and participation to WRIA 20  throughout the process.

    This is an SMP Public comment
    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.
    Shall we question why the WRIA 20 private property owners were and are IN MANY CASES, being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and were not informed, not invited, not selected, not appointed, not allowed to actively participate in SMP  Public Meetings?
    Failure to make a special effort to reach the under-represented WRIA 20  throughout the process communities/stakeholders.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 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.]

    Notes:

         Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

     

    FAILURE ? As related to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

    Clallam County will incorporate public participation in all phases of the SMP process ,document public participation efforts (e.g., public meetings, community events)

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:07 PM

    Subject: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976 and Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

    Lake Sutherland Private property owners have every reason to be fearful.

    Is it history repeating itself? Like the National Park take over of all private property on Lake Crescent?

    I was just a girl when it happened, but I have living memory of the grief it caused.

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    While the WA State law about participation does NOT specify private property owners.

    Our Family Trusts own 900 acres of land in Clallam County, we have paid tax on our private property for over 60 years.

    We have property in water sheds, including the Sol Duc River, Elwha River and Bagley Creek, legal water rights, hundreds of acres of designated Forest land, logging concerns, a gravel pit, property for development and a rock quarry.

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

    Has anyone (as as private property owner) EVER had a right to, or been entitled to, or had a position on the CCDCD Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP?

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:53 AM

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

    I read the focus study groups report prepared by ESA Adolfson.

    It was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011.

    There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

    I feel that the report was biased, it did not address the issues proportionately, that in their reporting they did misrepresent and not report private property owner’s spoken grievances.

    In ESA Adolfoson’s compliance attempt, they placed far more emphasis on the state take over of private property beach’s and the impute from agencies and business’s  then the concerns of the 60% of private property owners in Clallam County.

    I find it very disappointing  that our Clallam County Commissioners have allowed a totally self serving group of conservationists to publish biased findings and facts as the result of these public focus groups.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM

    Subject: Fw: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

    I would also like to add this as my comment on the Advisory meeting on 4/11/11.

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

    Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:00 PM

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

    After listening to the questions asked by concerned citizens at both public and the advisory SMP update meetings,

    I would like to submit, as my comments, the following RCW’S to educate, inform and clarify private property owners of their rights and protection under WA State law.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

    (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]

    Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

    Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can not legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    We must question every addition into our revised Clallam County SMP that goes beyond State SMP requirement.

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline. Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them. Except where specifically provided in statute, the regulations apply to all uses and development within shoreline jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit is required, and are implemented through an administrative process established by local government pursuant to RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 and enforcement pursuant to RCW 90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

    Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:28 AM

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

    1.  We would like a copy of the minutes of the first Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.  We need to know if our comments were recorded to our satisfaction or whether we need to resubmit them.

    2.  We were told that we would be given a website with your slides and material used in your presentation. Also a site to submit additional comments.

    It will be good to see the half million +dollars the County has paid ESA Adolfson for the public input and the representation of the Citizens of Clallam County to be well spent.

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:39 AM

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

    I have questions. The consultants pie charts indicate 65% of Clallam County shorelines are private property?

    When less than 17.1% (or less) of the entire County is private property?

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

    I read the 25 page report of Jefferson County’s public comments on their SMP update, after the fact.

    I want to know what comments are being made about Clallam County’s SMP update and I want to know before the fact.

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

    I am working on comments and recommendation to the SMP update.

     Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

     I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

     Were all of Jefferson County public comments held private until after the fact?

     How can we get a public web site so public comments are made PUBLIC?

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

    SO…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:23 PM

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

    Because you are in a position to influence the outcome of the SMP update and I am both on the Advisory Committee and a private property owner I feel compelled to inform you on issues of concern, not what is spoken at meetings, like last night, but as written comment.

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

    I have spent the last three months on line researching, complying and analyzing, statistics, laws, Port Townsend’s SMP update, the 7th revised addition of the WRIA, trespass by WFDW, Pacific Legal foundation, Jefferson County 25 page public comments on their SMP update, noxious weed control and attending public meeting, just to mention a few.

    I felt that both Commissioner Doherty and Shelia we unprepared  for public comment last night.

    The trespass discussed by WDFW was on 4 parcels of Rains Sr. Trust Land.

    The fear of the people on Lake Sutherland was my comment at a Commissioners meeting.

    I found and have been circulating the Oregon taking of property value.

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

    79.2%  (or more) of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND and it’s SHORELINES

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

    My public comment and recommendation  for the SMP update is that no additional private property be taken for PUBLIC SHORELINE  ACCESS.

     Any additional PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS on private property shall be strictly on a volunteer basis and not as a requirement for permits.

    Owning 79.2% of Clallam County, the Olympic National Park, National Forest Lands and the Dept of Natural Resources should be encouraged to provide PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

    AND…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:36 PM

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

    DCD Sheila Miller suggested that fear of the government may be dispelled by educating.

    Instead of educating fearful Lake Sutherland private property owners, why not help them?

    I researched and found three laws that  protect private property owner.

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Any WA State RCW’s that are beneficial to the rights and protection of private property owners should be included in the Clallam County SMP update.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.  

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

     (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

     (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:31 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

    As a fellow conservative and defender of property rights, I am calling on you with an urgent request to attend the Clallam County Commissioners meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. when the Shoreline Master Program update will be discussed.  Meeting information can be found at

    http://www.clallam.net/board/assets/applets/monwork.pdf.  This agenda item is planned for 9:45 a.m.

    Any public comment you are willing to provide is greatly appreciated.  Make your voice heard!  Even if you do not wish to comment, plan to attend the meeting to get a first hand view of our county government.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Defenders of Property Rights (Article on A8 in today’s PDN)

    Tomorrow, Monday 2/28/11, there will be a meeting in the commissioners meeting room, Clallam County Courthouse, on the Shoreline Master Program, SMP, Update.

    The meeting is at 0900 (AM) and will allow public input.  Unfortunately this is when most people have jobs and will be working.

    They may be just probing, checking our body temperature, the strength of their opposition to the draconian new rules restricting and regulating use of our private property.  (This may be a classic battle of the  citizens, ‘we the people’ against the big government agenda.)

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:08 AM

    Subject: Re: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

    May 05, 2011 10:19 AM, Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.

    SO WE BECAME THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE Shoreline”Important work group to provide input” Committee.

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM
    Subject: Responsible party
    —————————————–
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    Regarding the 30 members of  the invited Shoreline Advisory Committee.
    Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.
    ————————————————
    Am I confused? No, I am insulted.
    ——————————————-
    After reading Hannah’s documented, selectively summarized outcome of the first Advisory Committee meeting,
    ———————————————————–
    it is my personal opinion that we, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation,
    we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson..
    ——————————————————————–
    Comment by Carol Johnson regarding forest management and a new regulation on the SMP compliance report, she questioned why? The forest Act regulates forestry.
    ———————————————————————
    Comment the  “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of the follow WAC 173-26-191.
    ———————————————————————-

    WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them.

    Comment by Pearl Hewett, If regulation of private property is unconstitutional or illegal by WA State law Clallam County should NOT use it.


    Comment by Kaj Ahlburg, the WAC’s are more stringent then WA State law.

    The selective summary of the “Our Important work group to provide input” at the first meeting, did not mention any of these comments.
    I called Commissioner Mike Chapman.
    Who is responsible? The elected DCD Sheila Rourk Miller.
    Sheila went on vacation on April 26, 2011 the day after the 4C public meeting and will not be back in her office until Monday May 9, 2011.
    I called today and left a message, asking for a meeting with her.
    Pearl
    —————————————————————————-

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

    Thursday:  August 18, 2011 – No Net Loss Work Group , Clallam County BOCC Room 160, 223 East Fourth Street, Port Angeles, 10a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    Is this something either of you are leading?  If not, please forward my email to the correct person. I could not make the meeting yesterday.

    Could you please forward me all copies of the meeting agendas and minutes to date for this group?  I would like to gather this as soon as possible so I can get up to speed.

    Do you know if the Shoreline Advisory Committee been tasked with participating with the No Net Loss workgroup?  If so, I do not recall getting notice.  Please add my email address to the distribution list for all minutes and agendas of the No Net Loss workgroup.

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

    —————————————————————————————————–

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    SO,  I did respond to Jo Anne Estes (a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:54 PM

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

    When people asked about the NO NET LOSS at the public SMP meeting after our Aug.committee meeting (only 16 people showed up) I asked about the no net loss committee? Who are they? They have had only 1 meeting?  Steve Grey admitted, they had only had one meeting. I fear they are from the appointed 9 in the Planning Dept.? Steve did not identify them.

    Your letter to the PDN was good. Unfortunately too many people have taken the “Wait and see what they do attitude”

    Then, they will start screaming and yelling, after the fact!

    You are correct when you say we, as private property owners, are not represented proportionally on the SMP update committee. In fact we are not represented PERIOD.  Remember the meeting we attended at the Audubon.

    I have emailed, questioned, complained, bitched, requested info, made comments, spoken out at public meetings, been ignored when I raised my hand at the John Wayne Marina Public Forum, sent many DOE, Clallam County maps with their statistics  documenting their errors and omissions

     (August 19, 2011)  AND have yet to received a single response from the Planning Dept, Sheila, Hannah and Steve Grey do not respond.

    The committee members comments are not put on line as we were told they would be?

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

    ESA Adolfson completed a report on Puget Sound for the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in WA DC prior to our Jan 26, 2011 SMP meeting.

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • Navy to Face Public on Warfare

    Navy  to Face Public  on Electronic Warfare

    Update Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula

    Oct.8, 2014  Kilmer responds (full text below)

    Oct 8, 2014 PDN Navy to Face Forks Public

    Oct, 9, 2014 PDN  We are going to extend comment through the end of October

    I did demand answers on Sept 3, 2014 and make Rep. Derek Kilmer publicly and politically accountable for his  personal failure of “PUBLIC NOTICE” to the people he represents.

    Rep. Kilmer may not have ignored it, but he did not respond to me until Oct 8, 2014, over a month later.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Rep. Kilmer’s Response Oct. 8, 2014 (snippet, full text below)

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Navy’s proposed electronic warfare range throughout the Olympic Peninsula. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue with me.

    To this point, I have asked the Navy to send a representative to discuss the project with the Forks Chamber of Commerce, per their request, to provide the community with additional information. I’m also exploring whether it would be possible FOR THE NAVY TO RE-OPEN THE COMMENT PERIOD and give folks on the Peninsula a greater opportunity to weigh in.

    ——————————————————————————————

    We have won  the right to  a meet and greet with the Navy

    NAVY TO FACE PUBLIC NEXT WEEK ON PROPOSED WEST END …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/20141008/…/nav

    20 hours ago – FORKS — Community concerns over the Navy’s electronic warfare training proposal have prompted a meeting next week to … “We asked that the comment period be extended to [Oct. 31]

    ————————————————————————-

    We have won  the right to  EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT

    Thursday 9th October, 2014

    UPDATED — Navy to face public next week on proposed West End electronic warfare Peninsula Daily News DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

     WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND COMMENT THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER,’; Greg Wahl, a Forest Service environmental coordinator, said Wednesday.

    —————————————————————————————

    UPDATED — Navy to face public next week on proposed West End electronic warfare program; DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

    Peninsula Daily News Thursday 9th October, 2014

    FORKS — The deadline has been EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT on the U.S. Navy’s environmental assessment for an electronic warfare training proposal. The development comes as the U.S. Forest Service considers issuing a special-use permit for the Navy to use its roads during the exercises.’; WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND COMMENT THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER,’; Greg Wahl, a Forest Service environmental coordinator, said Wednesday. Comment on the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range project’s environmental assessment was set to end Friday, but with a community meeting on the topic coming next week, …

    ——————————————————————————————

    FULL TEXT  of Derek Kilmer’s response

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Representative Derek Kilmer

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 12:37 PM

    Subject: Responding to Your Message

    Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Navy’s proposed electronic warfare range throughout the Olympic Peninsula. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue with me.

    As you know, the Navy is interested in developing an electronic warfare range to assist Navy pilots practice their skills. The range would consist of one permanent structure, located near Whidbey Island, and three mobile vehicles outfitted with electronics. All four components would be capable of emitting signals that would be observed by the pilots while conducting training missions.

    In accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was conducted to determine the effects the range would have on the local environment. The draft study was made available to the public for comment between August 1 and August 15th. The comment period is now closed.

    I heard a few concerns from constituents about the EIS and reached out to the Navy to understand what kind of outreach had been conducted prior to alert individuals of the comment period and the proposed project.

    Based on information I have received thus far, I am concerned that the steps the Navy took did not adequately inform the community of the public comment period. Folks should have an opportunity to be briefed on activities that may affect their community and should also have the chance to weigh in with questions and concerns.

    I am working with the Navy to expand their outreach to the Olympic Peninsula and the West End to communicate planned infrastructure and capability investments that may affect our community. To this point, I have asked the Navy to send a representative to discuss the project with the Forks Chamber of Commerce, per their request, to provide the community with additional information. I’m also exploring whether it would be possible for the Navy to re-open the comment period and give folks on the Peninsula a greater opportunity to weigh in.

    Please know, that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind, as I work with the Navy to further understand this project and ensure that they improve their communications throughout our region.

    Sincerely,

    Derek Kilmer
    Member of Congress

     

    —————————————————————————————————–

    How could Representative Derek Kilmer  ignore and fail to respond on TO MY SEPT. 3, 2014 EMAIL, questions and concerns on Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    Rep. Kilmer may not have ignored it, but he did not respond to me until Oct 8, 2014, over a month later.

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP

    ATTITUDE IS A SMALL THING, BUT IT IS EVERYTHING WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT

    No matter what kind of shape OUR COUNTRY  is in, if  OUR ATTITUDE is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP, WE will stand a much better chance of succeeding. The folks in cyberspace  with will pick up on OUR  investigations, facts, documentation,,  credibility, sincerity and conviction, and they’ll begin to operate the same way. AND IT WILL ENABLE ALL OF US to take the difficult steps necessary.

    I did continue to post comments on my website, demanding answers and making Rep. Derek Kilmer publicly and politically accountable for his personal failure of “PUBLIC NOTICE” to the people he represents.

    ———————————————————————————–

    Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula?

    Posted on September 29, 2014 6:54 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    To Comment on Environmental Warfare?

    Posted on October 1, 2014 1:49 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————-

    Update on EW Public Comment

    Posted on October 1, 2014 2:40 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ——————————————————————————–

    More on the WA Coast Electronic War Games

    Posted on October 4, 2014 5:16 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

    We have exposed the fatal error in the Due Process Law

    We have won  the right to  a meet and greet with the Navy

    We have won  the right to  EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT

    The Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula,is no longer JUST a Local Issue.  The power of cyberspace has made it an AMERICA ISSUE.

     

     


  • (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS?  (a new style  is being created?)

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS AND THE DISCOVER PASS  PARKING TICKETS  that are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. AND, for improper display of the pass. Both my sister and my daughter were ticketed on the same day for improper display

    PARKING TICKETS?

    PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    Confused?

    YOUR ignorance is no excuse?

    —————————————————————-

    PARKING TICKETS?

    COMMON REASONS TO USE THE EXPLANATION FORM 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS.

    NO DUH! The people that have lived in WA State most of their lives,  DON’T WANT TO PAY TO “DISCOVER” WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WE HAVE. 

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS “TICKETS” Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass.

    An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white OR green  pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover Pass” written on the front of the white OR green pass.  A valid “Day Pass” is also available at each park.

     If the white pass has “WDFW” written on it, it is not a Discover Pass and is not valid for State Parks.

    1. Pay in full within 15 days. You may use electronic or phone payment options below.
    2. Request a hearing in writing as explained on the ticket within 15 days.
    3. Mail in an explanation in writing by completing and mailing the explanation form with payment and supporting documentation within 15 days.

    If you choose to mail in a written explanation you must use the Explanation Form, which is available by clicking here

    Common Reasons to use the Explanation Form 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY PASS PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    DISCOVERY PASS CONFUSION? WHAT CONFUSION?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    HAVE I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS?

    NOW IT IS TIME FOR THE  BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE, APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION TO  FOCUS ON THE DISCOVERY PASS, HATRED, PROBLEMS AND CONFUSION AND GENERATE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE  RECREATION AND TOURISM.

     to be continued…

     


  • (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    WOW! APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR  A BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION. FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM

    Notification to PUBLIC  in PDN Article published Aug 18, 2014

    One day notification to  meeting Aug. 19,2014 to make PUBLIC COMMENT.

    PDN Article WILL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC FROM 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. AND AT 7:25 P.M. (WRONG)
    ——————————————————————————————————————

    I DID ATTEND AND SIT THROUGH THE MEETING FROM 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    THE PANEL DID NOT HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC FROM  1 P.M. TO 3 P.M.

    (1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. was designated as a “FLY ON THE WALL OBSERVER” period)

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    I have previously posted two comments on my website

    May 29, 2014 – PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER (3) A FLY ON THE WALL.

    ————————. WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

     

    The Fly on the Wall Observer? Posted on July 6, 2014 … https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/7313/1793/0127/OPMA_Booklet.pdf. Do I have the right to …

    ———————————————————————————————————

    God forbid that a member of the PUBLIC should be allowed TO ASK A QUESTION  during that time period, OR IN FACT, TO ASK A QUESTION AT ANYTIME DURING THE SEVEN HOUR MEETING .

    WOW, DIRECTIVE… SIT DOWN FOR SIX HOURS? BE QUIET FOR SIX HOURS? LISTEN TO US FOR SIX HOURS? NO QUESTIONS FOR SIX HOURS? NO ANSWERS FOR SIX HOURS OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?

    MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING,  SHALL BE ALLOWED EXACTLY  TWO MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER LISTENING TO THE PANEL FROM  1 P.M. TO 7:25 P.M

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    SOMEONE MENTIONED KEEPING THINGS OUT OF THE MEDIA?

    —————————————————————————————————–

    AFTER THE FACT OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DRAFT.

    THE PANEL DID HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC AFTER  7:25 P.M.

    ————————————————————————-

    One member of the panel objected to making PUBLIC COMMENTS, after the fact and last on their agenda.  

    —————————————————————————————————————

    TO COMMENT OR NOT TO COMMENT?

    I LOVE THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETING ACT, ONE DAY NOTIFICATION AND A TWO MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT SO I CAN GIVE THEM MY TWO CENTS WORTH.

    A woman that said she had been with WA State RECREATION for 30 years, SHE finally did it…

    I had heard ENUF…I filled out the card to make my comment.

    WHY? Because, my family gave up on WA State Parks  OVER FOUR  years ago and they have GONE TO IDAHO AND  HAVE SPENT  10 DAYS EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN, VACATIONING IN IDAHO.

    ————————————————————————————————

    BACK TO THE MEETING  1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. (pertinent parts?)

    WHAT TO DO? WA PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS – OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS (a new style  is being created?)

    WHAT TO DO? WA PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    LET’S TAX THE PEOPLE

    1. Car tax

    2. Bottled water tax

    3. RV tax

    ——————————————————————-

    WHY DO THE PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    THE HUGE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

    TO KEEP PARKS OPEN? TO PROVIDE FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NOT ONLY THE OUT OF TOWN TOURISTS,  BUT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RECREATING TO LOCAL FAMILIES?

    AFFORDABLE? WA STATE PARK RECREATION? (the first mention of the word “AFFORDABLE” was from a Park man from Whidbey Island.

    WHAT A CONCEPT HUGE $$$$ PUSH TO INVITE  OUT OF TOWN TOURISTS TO COME TO WA  PARKS ONLY FOR THE TOURISTS TO FIND OUT THERE NO FACILITIES  AND  NO SPACE AVAILABLE. (they will go to Idaho or Oregon next year)

    WHAT A CONCEPT HUGE $$$$ PUSH TO INVITE  PEOPLE TO COME TO WA  PARKS FOR THE FISHING? ONLY FOR THE TOURISTS TO FIND OUT THERE IS NO FISHING?

    to be continued …

    ——————————————————————————————-

    COMPLETE TEXT OF PDN PUBLIC NOTICE

    Article published Aug 18, 2014
    State outdoor recreation panel to hear public testimony Tuesday in Sequim
    Peninsula Daily News
    SEQUIM –– A panel called by Gov. Jay Inslee to develop an action plan for increasing outdoor recreation activities will hear testimony from the public when it meets in Sequim on Tuesday.

    The task force formed in April also will focus on promoting jobs and business associated with outdoor recreation for the plan due Sept. 18.

    will hear testimony from the public when it meets in Sequim on Tuesday

     

    The panel — which will meet from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Sequim Holiday Inn Express, 1441 E. Washington St. — will hear testimony from the public from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and at 7:25 p.m.

    The 28-member task force includes 16 citizen members appointed by the governor; state Reps. Steve Tharinger, D-Sequim, and Vincent Buys, R-Lynden; state Sens. Linda Parlette, R-Wenatchee, and Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island; and eight representatives of state agencies.

    Tharinger represents the 24th Legislative District, which covers Clallam and Jefferson counties and part of Grays Harbor County. He is running for re-election in the Nov. 4 general election.

    Outdoor recreation statewide directly supports 227,000 jobs and generates more than $22 billion in annual spending on things like equipment, lodging and apparel, according to the state Recreation and Conservation Office.

    More information about the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Parks and Outdoor Recreation can be found on the state Recreation and Conservation Office’s website at http://tinyurl.com/PDN-recreation.


    All materials Copyright © 2014 Black Press Ltd./Sound Publishing Inc.

    to be continued …

     


  • SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

     

    Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    FROM Aug 23, 2008  TO Aug. 2014 – SIX YEARS

    This is a applicable, cautionary, documented historical  summary and it is,  my PUBLIC Clallam County SMP COMMENT on the pitfalls and frustration that ONE WA State  city council  and PLANNING COMMISSION has been experiencing for OVER 6 YEARS in attempting to update their DOE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    Jul 16, 2014 BELLEVUE Shoreline plan set for August 2014  public hearing

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

    HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    —————————————————————–

    Please continue reading for the documented history

    ———————————————————————————-

     

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    WHO IS ATTORNEY RICHARD SETTLE ? (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

    HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

     

    The Planning Commission SMP Update recommendation was the subject of

    a prior public hearing that was held on May 5, 2014.

     

    During the July 14, 2014  Study Session, staff presented additional information requested by the Council during the course of its in-depth review. This additional information was Council to identify variations to the  Planning Commission Recommendation that they wished to be considered during the second Public Hearing, and prior to development of the Final SMP Update package for submittal to the Department of Ecology. Variations requested by the Council for consideration by the public are described below.

     

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would require public access (either physical or visual) to be provided as a component of new or expanded private recreation uses (such as yacht clubs, marinas and community clubs). This variation would build on the Planning Commission recommended requirement to provide public access to public uses (including parks, and transportation and utility infrastructure). A description of the Public Access variation under consideration by the City Council is included in

     

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would permit all beach parks to be developed through an administrative permit approval process when a Master Plan had been previously adopted by the City Council.

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

    permitted in the same manner as other parks with Master Plans. A

    description of the Park Development variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in

     

    Attachment B.

    3.

    Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission recommendation would allow for the measurement of setbacks from a fixed elevation as a default, with the ability for applicants to obtain a site-specific determination if desired.

    The fixed elevation would be

    3 based on a lake study such as the one conducted for Lake Sammamish in 2004. This variation would also include  clarification that the fixed elevations would not be used for the purpose of establishing shoreline jurisdiction or determining the

    location of ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for the purpose of properly locating a new dock or bulkhead. A description of the variation under consideration by the City Council for Determination of OHWM is presented in.

     

    Attachment C.

    4.Setbacksand Vegetation Conservation. The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission setback

    recommendation would include a 50-foot  structure setback with the flexibility to reduce the setback and move toward the water through a series of menu options(or incentives). Existing structures on the site receive the benefit of a footprint exception to legally retain setbacks established by existing residential structures. A string test, allowing for setbacks to be reduced based on the location of structures on abutting properties, would also be included. Mitigation for potential loss of vegetation and vegetation retention would also be required. A description of the Setback and Vegetation Conservation variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in Attachment D.

     

    5.Residential Moorage.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission residential moorage recommendation would increase the allowed moorage walkway width from four feet to five feet in the first 30 feet waterward of OHWM. Variations to the balance of the Planning Commission recommendation on this topic were not considered.

     

    City Council

    The City Council has held study sessions to consider the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program. Refer to the links below for council agenda materials and minutes on the topic.

    Planning Commission

    Residents and other stakeholders had multiple opportunities to provide feedback on the shoreline management update through Bellevue’s Planning Commission, residents who served as an advisory panel for the City Council.  The Planning Commission reviewed work products, provided input and guidance related to the development of goals, policies and regulations, and served as a preliminary approval board. Agendas for Planning Commission meetings in which the shoreline management update was addressed are available below.

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

    Responses to questions & requests collected between May & December of 2009

     

    ——————————————————————————-

    In 2003 the state revised its shoreline management guidelines to emphasize ecologically appropriate development and to reinforce the other goals of the act.

    by 2010. As a consequence, Bellevue has to update its shoreline regulations by 2010.

    Bellevue has been Updating their  SMP plan since 2008

    Aug 23, 2008  Boat tour to focus on shoreline issues The boat will sail promptly from Newport Shores Yacht Club (81 Skagit Key) at 1 p.m. on

    Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008,  with boarding beginning at 12:30. Members of the Bellevue City Council, city boards and commissions and staff from permitting agencies and local Indian tribes are also expected to attend.

    The three-hour tour is open to the public, but space is limited. (To inquire about the tour or to RSVP, please call 425-452-4392 or e-mail sltaylor@bellevuewa.gov.)

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013  

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

    Jul 20, 2013  The Bellevue City Council agreed on a two-prong strategy for updating the city’s Shoreline Master Program, and, ultimately, forwarding the plan to the state Department of Ecology for final review and approval.

    The shoreline plan is required by state law and provides a regulatory framework for managing shorelines in Washington. Local plans must be consistent with Ecology guidelines.

    THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    In May, the commission recommended that the council consider several components of the plan update that had been completed and posted online for review.

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    On Monday, the council directed city staff to work with Ecology on the content of the commission’s recommendations and possibly narrow the range of issues that need to be resolved. COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO BEGIN WORK TO FINALIZE THE REMAINING ELEMENTS OF THE SHORELINE PLAN UPDATE PRIOR TO FORMALLY SUBMITTING IT TO ECOLOGY. The council plans to review and discuss the plan update during a study session later this year.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

    Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday

    as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

    WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

    Apr 30, 2014 Bellevue council members had more questions than answers by the end of Monday’s third round of informational sessions provided by staff about the progress of creating a shoreline master plan the city hopes will pass state muster.

    The City Council was updated Monday on the cumulative impact analysis and HOW BELLEVUE’S PLAN WILL ATTEMPT TO SATISFY A REQUIREMENT THAT NO NET LOSS OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS occur during future development and redevelopment along the city’s jurisdictional shorelines. THIS CAME AHEAD OF A MAY 5 PUBLIC HEARING for the city’s shoreline master plan, which will eventually go to the Washington Department of Ecology for final approval.

    Sarah Sandstrom, fisheries biologist for the Watershed Company, told council members “NO NET LOSS” goes further than just ecological functions of a shoreline, and includes also preserving shoreline views for residents and assessing the amount of reasonable development that could occur in the next 20 years along Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish.

    With a majority of Bellevue’s shorelines already developed, Sandstrom said residential redevelopment will likely be the most common occurrence and some new single-family development.

    The plan involves taking a qualitative look at the issue of NET LOSS, she said, as it’s hard to quantify restoration when a dock, for example, requires a certain amount of native vegetation to offset its impact as part of an “ECOLOGICAL TRADEOFF.”

    “Shoreline residential development falls under an exemption,” said Sandstrom of the no net loss requirement. “So, individual demonstration of no net loss is not required for shoreline residential development or for most permits that are issued as shoreline substantial development permits.”

    That does not mean the city will not need to ensure there is no net loss of ecological function, she told council, but that it will not need to be proven independently by the permit applicant. The project would be checked against current regulations that should result in no net loss.

    Bulkheads — vertical concrete barriers along shorelines — will not be allowed to be replaced under the shoreline plan, which instead favors a rocky slope. Bulkheads, said Sandstrom, negatively affects wave reflection. Bulkheads would need to be determined the only feasible option to be used.

    Sandstrom said another concern is that the plan proposes residential setbacks of 25 feet, which is less than the existing median setback of 50 feet for Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington.

    “The potential for houses moving closer to the shoreline has potential impacts in terms of water quality, moving pollutant generating surfaces closer to the shoreline,” she said.

    Should redevelopment of properties occur using a 25-foot setback, Sandstrom said there is also the potential of obstructing the views from other properties than are 50 feet from the shoreline.

    One option proposed to prevent this is a common line or streamline setback, which would require a new or redeveloped property to use the average setback of the two properties adjacent to it.

    Whether all of the effort being put into the plan will satisfy how the DOE defines “NO NET LOSS” may only be known once the shoreline master plan is submitted. According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    “It’s definitely not pre-European discovery,” he said.

    Councilmember Kevin Wallace expressed his irritation that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said. “So, I just want to lodge my personal frustration. I’m just stunned that every jurisdiction in the state has to go through this and do this and in 2014 the state of the law on this is so unclear. … What we’re basically looking at is someone’s opinion,” he said.

     ————————————————————————————————-

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

    Jul 16, 2014 at 3:10PM Bellevue Mayor Claudia Balducci made it clear to City Council on Monday they had precious little time left to approve options for a draft shoreline management plan AHEAD OF AN AUGUST PUBLIC HEARING.

    COUNCIL MEMBERS PASSED IT BACK TO STAFF, CONFIDENT PUBLIC OPINION WILL CHANGE IT AGAIN.

    Public access

    The council passed forward direction to have the SMP expand public access to commercial shoreline properties that expand more than 20 percent, such as marinas and yacht clubs. 

    LAND USE DIRECTOR CAROL HELLAND TOLD COUNCIL MEMBERS — CAUTIOUS OF VIOLATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS — access can be limited if security risks are present, and may also only apply to visual access in some cases.

    Siding with yacht clubs and marinas, Councilmember Jennifer Robertson pointed out they do offer public access — as long as people pay for it.

    Park development options

    Council members have heard public comment asking them to side with the city’s planning commission’s recommendation that Meydenbauer Beach Park — slated to be Bellevue’s most expensive park redeveloped at more than $40 million — REQUIRE a conditional use permit ahead of construction. The Meydenbauer Bay Neighborhood Association argues it would require a public hearing and allow residents to be more involved in its development.

    The City Council decided since a master plan exists for Meydenbauer Bay Park, future construction would be dealt with through administrative permitting and does not require a CUP.

    High water mark

    Robertson told council members they were making the wrong decision when they voted to set the high-water mark at a static elevation using the Bellevue Lake Study, which sets it at 31.8 feet, but allows for individualized assessment.

    She said she spoke to a scientist who told her the study was flawed, using two standard deviations. Councilmember John Chelminiak said the state Department of Ecology will make the ultimate decision on the SMP, and the council can choose differently, but the plan may not be accepted.

    “It is the latest study that has been done, and it is consistent, at least with what Sammamish set,” Chelminiak said.”I’m ready to vote,”

    ROBERTSON SAID. “I’M GOING TO BE AN EMPHATIC ‘NO’ “

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

    Council members passed through an option to allow flexible setbacks of 50 feet, which property owners can buy down to 25 feet if they follow a string test and provide adequate vegetation conservation using set menu options.

    Balducci said the planning commission recommendation for 50-foot setbacks with greenscape options would result in net loss of native vegetation, and that replacing it with lawns is not what SMP regulations should encourage.

    Robertson said the commission’s option should be considered, but require greenscape only be allowed for two-thirds of the area required for vegetative conservation. She said string tests and menu options requiring unsightly native vegetation goes too far.

    Council members agreed to move forward with the 50-foot setbacks, string test and menu options, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC COMMENT WILL MODIFY THOSE OPTIONS to lessen vegetation requirements and allow greenscape where appropriate.

    “I would agree, this goes overboard,” Chelminiak said.

    A draft of the SMP will be developed by city staff ahead of an Aug. 4 public hearing, after which the council WILL DIRECT STAFF AGAIN on Sept. 8, 2014 on what regulations should be submitted to the DOE for review.

     

    • BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer 

     

    Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday

    as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

     Mar 13, 2014  WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    and review of the cumulative impact analysis and light rail component on April 28 2014 .

    —————————————————————————————

     

    April 30, 2014 Updating the SMP plan — mainly unchanged since 1974 — also has been an

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2011. (2010?)

    April 30, 2014 Monday’s City Council study session laid out the progress of the planning commission,

     including fixes to a number of COMPLIANCY ISSUES within the SMP’s May 2013 draft FOLLOWING AN UNSOLICITED REVIEW BY the (DOE) Washington Department of Ecology, which has final say on approving the program.

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    The Clallam County SMP Update will have a significantly LARGER NEGATIVE impact on the economic development of  private property on the shorelines statewide significance rivers, lakes and streams IN OUR UNDEVELOPED COUNTY.

    Related Stories

     

     

     


  • The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)

    For purposes of this section—

    (3) (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    OPEN TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE  Public Meeting?

    Where did Jefferson County WA come up with their PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER?

    AKA the  A FLY ON THE WALL?

    ———————————————————————-

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER? PUBLIC COMMENTS?

    Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    YES AND NO

    BASED ON THE STATE?  Of the State where you reside.

    ————————————————————————

    ILLINOIS  RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

     Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/FAQ_OMA_Government.pdf

    The Open Meetings Act requires that public bodies give members of the public an opportunity to speak at a public meeting. Public bodies are authorized to adopt rules regarding the public comment portion of a meeting. Such rules may limit the time allotted for the public to speak.

    ———————————————————————————–

    WASHINGTON STATE  RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

     Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernment/InternetManual/Chapter3.aspx#.U7lbHLEUGGc

    The OPMA does not require a governing body to allow everyone to speak at a public meeting.  A governing body has significant authority to limit the time of speakers to a uniform amount (such as three minutes) or to not allow anyone to speak.  OTHER LAWS MIGHT REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AT A PUBLIC MEETING, but the OPMA does not.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    NEW JERSEY RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

    https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/7313/1793/0127/OPMA_Booklet.pdf

    Do I have the right to speak at public meetings?

    The law currently requires municipal governing bodies and

    school boards to set aside a portion of every meeting for public

    comments. Other public bodies may also allow public comments,

    but they are not required to do so. If a public body provides a time for public comment, it may adopt written policies that require speakers to sign up in advance and that limit the time of each speaker.

    When addressing the public body, the public body is not required

    to respond to your questions.

    The public body cannot censor your speech during a public comment portion because it does not agree with you or like what you are saying.

    The public body also cannot prohibit comments based on subject matter so long as the comments relate to any issue “that a member of the public feels

    may be of concern to the residents of the municipality or school district.”

     

    ——————————————————————————————————————-

    U.S. CodeTitle 5Part IChapter 5Subchapter II › § 552b

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open  Public Meetings Act

    ————————————————

    Short form? Open Public  Meeting Act ? If you read it? (full text below)

    More is written about what is PROTECTED and NOT OPEN to the public

    ———————————————————————————————–

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open meetings

    For purposes of this section—

    (1) the term “agency” means any agency, as defined in section 552 (e)  [1] of this title, headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members, a majority of whom are appointed to such position by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and any subdivision thereof authorized to act on behalf of the agency;

    (2) the term “meeting” means the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business, but does not include deliberations required or permitted by subsection (d) or (e); and

    (3) the term “member” means an individual who belongs to a collegial body heading an agency.

    (b) Members shall not jointly conduct or dispose of agency business other than in accordance with this section. Except as provided in subsection (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

     

    (c) Except in a case where the agency finds that the public interest requires otherwise, the second sentence of subsection (b) shall not apply to any portion of an agency meeting, and the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) shall not apply to any information pertaining to such meeting otherwise required by this section to be disclosed to the public, where the agency properly determines that such portion or portions of its meeting or the disclosure of such information is likely to—

    (1) disclose matters that are

    (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy and

    (B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

    (2) relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

    (3) disclose matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552 of this title), provided that such statute

    (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or

    (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

    (4) disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

    (5) involve accusing any person of a crime, or formally censuring any person;

    (6) disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

    (7) disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information would

    (A) interfere with enforcement proceedings,

    (B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,

    (C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

    (D) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source,

    (E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or

    (F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;

    (8) disclose information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;

    (9) disclose information the premature disclosure of which would—

    (A) in the case of an agency which regulates currencies, securities, commodities, or financial institutions, be likely to

    (i) lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities, or

    (ii) significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution; or

    (B) in the case of any agency, be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action,

    except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply in any instance where the agency has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final agency action on such proposal; or

    (10) specifically concern the agency’s issuance of a subpena, or the agency’s participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the agency of a particular case of formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in section 554 of this title or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing.

    (d)

    (1) Action under subsection (c) shall be taken only when a majority of the entire membership of the agency (as defined in subsection (a)(1)) votes to take such action. A separate vote of the agency members shall be taken with respect to each agency meeting a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c), or with respect to any information which is proposed to be withheld under subsection (c). A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings, a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information concerning such series of meetings, so long as each meeting in such series involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held no more than thirty days after the initial meeting in such series. The vote of each agency member participating in such vote shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.

    (2) Whenever any person whose interests may be directly affected by a portion of a meeting requests that the agency close such portion to the public for any of the reasons referred to in paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of subsection (c), the agency, upon request of any one of its members, shall vote by recorded vote whether to close such meeting.

    (3) Within one day of any vote taken pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2), the agency shall make publicly available a written copy of such vote reflecting the vote of each member on the question. If a portion of a meeting is to be closed to the public, the agency shall, within one day of the vote taken pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, make publicly available a full written explanation of its action closing the portion together with a list of all persons expected to attend the meeting and their affiliation.

    (4) Any agency, a majority of whose meetings may properly be closed to the public pursuant to paragraph (4), (8), (9)(A), or (10) of subsection (c), or any combination thereof, may provide by regulation for the closing of such meetings or portions thereof in the event that a majority of the members of the agency votes by recorded vote at the beginning of such meeting, or portion thereof, to close the exempt portion or portions of the meeting, and a copy of such vote, reflecting the vote of each member on the question, is made available to the public. The provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection and subsection (e) shall not apply to any portion of a meeting to which such regulations apply: Provided, That the agency shall, except to the extent that such information is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of subsection (c), provide the public with public announcement of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting and of each portion thereof at the earliest practicable time.

    (e)

    (1) In the case of each meeting, the agency shall make public announcement, at least one week before the meeting, of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting, whether it is to be open or closed to the public, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the agency to respond to requests for information about the meeting. Such announcement shall be made unless a majority of the members of the agency determines by a recorded vote that agency business requires that such meeting be called at an earlier date, in which case the agency shall make public announcement of the time, place, and subject matter of such meeting, and whether open or closed to the public, at the earliest practicable time.

    (2) The time or place of a meeting may be changed following the public announcement required by paragraph (1) only if the agency publicly announces such change at the earliest practicable time. The subject matter of a meeting, or the determination of the agency to open or close a meeting, or portion of a meeting, to the public, may be changed following the public announcement required by this subsection only if

    (A) a majority of the entire membership of the agency determines by a recorded vote that agency business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible, and

    (B) the agency publicly announces such change and the vote of each member upon such change at the earliest practicable time.

    (3) Immediately following each public announcement required by this subsection, notice of the time, place, and subject matter of a meeting, whether the meeting is open or closed, any change in one of the preceding, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the agency to respond to requests for information about the meeting, shall also be submitted for publication in the Federal Register.

    (f)

    (1) For every meeting closed pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (10) of subsection (c), the General Counsel or chief legal officer of the agency shall publicly certify that, in his or her opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public and shall state each relevant exemptive provision. A copy of such certification, together with a statement from the presiding officer of the meeting setting forth the time and place of the meeting, and the persons present, shall be retained by the agency. The agency shall maintain a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public, except that in the case of a meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public pursuant to paragraph (8), (9)(A), or (10) of subsection (c), the agency shall maintain either such a transcript or recording, or a set of minutes. Such minutes shall fully and clearly describe all matters discussed and shall provide a full and accurate summary of any actions taken, and the reasons therefor, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any rollcall vote (reflecting the vote of each member on the question). All documents considered in connection with any action shall be identified in such minutes.

    (2) The agency shall make promptly available to the public, in a place easily accessible to the public, the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes (as required by paragraph (1)) of the discussion of any item on the agenda, or of any item of the testimony of any witness received at the meeting, except for such item or items of such discussion or testimony as the agency determines to contain information which may be withheld under subsection (c). Copies of such transcript, or minutes, or a transcription of such recording disclosing the identity of each speaker, shall be furnished to any person at the actual cost of duplication or transcription. The agency shall maintain a complete verbatim copy of the transcript, a complete copy of the minutes, or a complete electronic recording of each meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public, for a period of at least two years after such meeting, or until one year after the conclusion of any agency proceeding with respect to which the meeting or portion was held, whichever occurs later.

    (g) Each agency subject to the requirements of this section shall, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, following consultation with the Office of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States and published notice in the Federal Register of at least thirty days and opportunity for written comment by any person, promulgate regulations to implement the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section. Any person may bring a proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require an agency to promulgate such regulations if such agency has not promulgated such regulations within the time period specified herein. Subject to any limitations of time provided by law, any person may bring a proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to set aside agency regulations issued pursuant to this subsection that are not in accord with the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section and to require the promulgation of regulations that are in accord with such subsections.

    (h)

    (1) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to enforce the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section by declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other relief as may be appropriate. Such actions may be brought by any person against an agency prior to, or within sixty days after, the meeting out of which the violation of this section arises, except that if public announcement of such meeting is not initially provided by the agency in accordance with the requirements of this section, such action may be instituted pursuant to this section at any time prior to sixty days after any public announcement of such meeting. Such actions may be brought in the district court of the United States for the district in which the agency meeting is held or in which the agency in question has its headquarters, or in the District Court for the District of Columbia. In such actions a defendant shall serve his answer within thirty days after the service of the complaint. The burden is on the defendant to sustain his action. In deciding such cases the court may examine in camera any portion of the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes of a meeting closed to the public, and may take such additional evidence as it deems necessary. The court, having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as the interests of the parties, may grant such equitable relief as it deems appropriate, including granting an injunction against future violations of this section or ordering the agency to make available to the public such portion of the transcript, recording, or minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be withheld under subsection (c) of this section.

    (2) Any Federal court otherwise authorized by law to review agency action may, at the application of any person properly participating in the proceeding pursuant to other applicable law, inquire into violations by the agency of the requirements of this section and afford such relief as it deems appropriate. Nothing in this section authorizes any Federal court having jurisdiction solely on the basis of paragraph (1) to set aside, enjoin, or invalidate any agency action (OTHER THAN AN ACTION TO CLOSE A MEETING OR TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION UNDER THIS SECTION) taken or discussed at any agency meeting out of which the violation of this section arose.

    (i) The court may assess against any party reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by any other party who substantially prevails in any action brought in accordance with the provisions of subsection (g) or (h) of this section, except that costs may be assessed against the plaintiff only where the court finds that the suit was initiated by the plaintiff primarily for frivolous or dilatory purposes. In the case of assessment of costs against an agency, the costs may be assessed by the court against the United States.

    (j) Each agency subject to the requirements of this section shall annually report to the Congress regarding the following:

    (1) The changes in the policies and procedures of the agency under this section that have occurred during the preceding 1-year period.

    (2) A tabulation of the number of meetings held, the exemptions applied to close meetings, and the days of public notice provided to close meetings.

    (3) A brief description of litigation or formal complaints concerning the implementation of this section by the agency.

    (4) A brief explanation of any changes in law that have affected the responsibilities of the agency under this section.

    (k) Nothing herein expands or limits the present rights of any person under section 552 of this title, except that the exemptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section shall govern in the case of any request made pursuant to section 552 to copy or inspect the transcripts, recordings, or minutes described in subsection (f) of this section. The requirements of chapter 33 of title 44, United States Code, shall not apply to the transcripts, recordings, and minutes described in subsection (f) of this section.

    (l) This section does not constitute authority to withhold any information from Congress, and DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE CLOSING OF ANY AGENCY MEETING OR PORTION THEREOF REQUIRED BY ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO BE OPEN.

    (m) Nothing in this section authorizes any agency to withhold from any individual any record, including transcripts, recordings, or minutes required by this section, which is otherwise accessible to such individual under section 552a of this title.

    ———————————————————————————————-

     

     


  • American Restoration of Law and Order

    American Restoration of Law and Order?

    OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY  IN AMERICA?

    HELLO CONGRESS IS ANYBODY HOME? WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU, THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, OF “WE THE PEOPLE”,

    READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

    ——————————————————————————————

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

     

    ————————————————-

    DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY?  IN 2014 America?  AN EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENT CRIME THAT INCLUDES, CRIME SPREES BY THE MENTALLY ILL, MASS MURDERS HOME INVASIONS,  KILLING, RAPE,  KIDNAPPING, CARJACKING, DRIVE BY SHOOTINGS, GANG WARS, DRUNKS, DRUGS  AND MORE.

    ————————————————————————————

    While in 2014 the streets AMERICA  run red with the blood of the victims?

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY?  “WE THE PEOPLE” are AFRAID to go out of our homes, “WE THE PEOPLE” are even AFRAID inside our  homes, AFRAID, while driving our  car, AFRAID, while playing at a park with our children, AFRAID to walk alone, AFRAID when we are walking on public streets after dark and even AFRAID when we are walking on public streets in daylight.

     And,  “WE THE PEOPLE” are AFRAID of the FUTURE for our children, grand children, and great grand children, As we are now being forced to  live in THIS EVER ESCULATING OUT OF CONTROL CRIMINALLY DICTATED SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT UNDER A DELUGE of violence, murder and mayhem IN 2014 AMERICA.

    ——————————————————————————

    While in 2014 the streets AMERICA  run red with the blood of the victims?

    ————————————————————————-

    HELLO CONGRESS IS ANYBODY HOME? WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU, THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, OF “WE THE PEOPLE”, READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

    YOUR DERELICTION  OF CONGRESSIONAL DUTY, YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE US  MOST BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS has turned “We the People” into the most “ENDANGERED SPECIES” IN AMERICA.

    ————————————————————————————–

    “We the People” are not only AFRAID of what our government (congress) is doing to us,

    “We the People” are AFRAID because of

    what our Government (congress) HAS NOT DONE FOR “We the People”.

    UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

    (1)  ESTABLISH JUSTICE

    (2)  INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

     (3) PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

    (4)  PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

    (5)  SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES

    (6)  AND OUR POSTERITY

     


  • The Public Meeting “Observer”

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

     THE “NEW” PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA FOR OBSERVER PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —————————————-

    OBSERVER by definition

     

    (1) A person who follows events, especially political ones, closely and COMMENTS PUBLICLY ON THEM.

     

    (2) A  person who watches or notices something

     

    (3) A fly on the wall

    ————————————————————

    Something new has been added to the agenda

    by the Jefferson County Planning Commission

    (complete text bottom)

     ————————————————————

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER-PUBLIC COMMENTS

    Public Meeting OBSERVER

    (1) Historically A person who follows events, especially political ones, closely and COMMENTS PUBLICLY on them,

    has now been officially designate as

    PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER (3) A FLY ON THE WALL.

     ————————————————————————

     

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION

    “Once a government is committed to the principle of SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  ENFORCED SILENCE

     If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE.”

     

    ———————————————————————–

    1 day ago – OTHER MEETINGS? Page 1. “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal? Page 9. Attendees? Right to speak? It’s OK to FORBID ANYONE …

    ————————————————————————-

    Complete text

    JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

    MEETING AGENDA

    1:30 P.M. Wednesday, June 4, 2014

    Queets-Clearwater School, 146000 Hwy 101 (South of Forks)

    ——————————————————-

    Something new has been added

    by the Jefferson County Planning Commission

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

    ————————————————–

    OBSERVER COMMENT

    We encourage public participation and

    welcome comments submitted anytime in

    writing or by email at the address shown

    above. We want to hear your ideas or

    concerns.

    The Observer Comment Period on the

    agenda is:

    • An optional time period dedicated to

    listening to the public – Planning

    Commission is not required to provide

    response;

    • Offered at the Chair’s discretion when

    there’s time;

    • Not a public hearing – comments made

    during this time will not be part of any

    hearing record;

    • May be structured with a three-minute per

    person time limit.

    When the Chair recognizes you to speak,

    please begin by stating your name and

    address.

    Audience members are asked to avoid

    disrupting the business being conducted and

    are welcome to interact informally with

    Planning Commissioners before or after the

    meeting and during the break.

    Please silence cell phones and other devices

    ————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

     

    ———————————————————————–

    1:30 PM A. OPENING BUSINESS:

    • Call to Order – Kevin Coker, Chair

    • Roll Call & Quorum of Members

    • Approval of Agenda

    • Approval of 5/21 Meeting Minutes

    • Staff Updates

    • Committee Reports/ Commissioner Announcements

    1:45 PM B. CONTINUED BUSINESS:

    1. Comprehensive Plan Update

    2. Planning Commission Public Survey

    3:00 PM Observer Comment

    3:15 PM C. CLOSING BUSINESS:

    • Summary of today’s meeting –

    Follow-up action items

    • Agenda items for next meeting –

    June 18, 2014 at 6:30 pm at Quilcene School

    3:30 PM D. ADJOURNMENT

    ————————————————————————–

    PUBLIC SERVANTare not the people’s master

     

    PUBLIC SERVANTS?   ARE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES

    All public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof.

    —————————————————————————–

     RCW 42.30.030Meetings declared open and public

    All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

    —————————————————————————–

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    RCW 42.30.010

    Legislative declaration.

    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.

    ————————————————————————————–

    RCW 42.30.130

    Violations.— Mandamus or injunction Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.

    ————————————————-

     

     


  • KILMER WAS HERE?

    Exactly where and when was Kilmer’s PUBLIC meeting with STAKEHOLDERS in Clallam County?

    Congressman Kilmer launches ‘State of the District’ tour
    • Jan 17, 2014 at 9:00AM
    U.S. Representative Derek Kilmer will visit every county in the 6th District to meet with constituents, LOCAL BUSINESS LEADERS AND STAKEHOLDERS in a “State of the District” tour.
    —————————————————————————————————————
    I am a STAKEHOLDER, as the trustee of over 800 acres of private forest land in Clallam County.
    I oppose the “WILD OLYMPICS” in every way, shape and form, past, present and future.
    What method of notification to the PUBLIC did Kilmer use and did he use to notify THE STAKEHOLDERS about his schedule?
    ———————————————————————————-
    Kilmer states, I’ve met with a wide range of constituents.
    He met up with me at his Sequim public forum.
    My public comment?
    I oppose the “WILD OLYMPICS” in every way, shape and form, past present and future.
    PRO- WILD OLYMPIC OUT OF TOWNER’S have a lot of nerve showing up here at our local forum.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Have stakeholders that oppose the WILD OLYMPICS been excommunicated?
    (in a partisan political sense)

    OFFICIALLY EXCLUDED FROM PUBLIC NOTIFICATION and taking part in PUBLIC MEETINGS and communicating because of our opposition of the WILD OLYMPICS?
    Exactly where and when was Kilmer’s PUBLIC meeting with STAKEHOLDERS in Clallam County? (sorry, I didn’t receive that information?)
    Were Kilmer’s meetings in every county OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS?
    Exactly who? were the STAKEHOLDERS that Kilmer was meeting with? (sorry, I didn’t receive that information?)
    Indeed, as a STAKEHOLDER, that opposes the WILD OLYMPICS I AM OFFENDED, by the failure of Representative Derek Kilmer to provide a schedule of his ‘STATE OF THE DISTRICT’ TOUR.
    And, as a STAKEHOLDER, I am offended by his use of public meetings to PROMOTE HIS PLANS for economic development. without input from vested private property owners that oppose the WILD OLYMPICS.

    —————————————————————————————————————

    What happened to Representative Derek Kilmer’s attitude?

    Democracy works best when “we the people” have our voices heard and when our elected officials are available and accessible. I look forward to hearing from you.

    What’s more, hearing the views of folks in our region is important to my work. I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress debates these issues in the future and have forwarded these articles to my staff.

    I appreciate you taking the time to share the articles with me. I encourage you to continue to reach out if I can ever lend a hand.

    It is important to me that this process is inclusive of other citizens and organizations.  As the collaborative gets kicked off, one of its first tasks will be to figure out how best to make that happen. I will make sure that once the avenues for communication have been established by the collaborative, folks will be informed and encouraged to lend their ideas.

    ——————————————————————————————————–
    Congressman Kilmer launches ‘State of the District’ tour
    • Jan 17, 2014 at 9:00AM
    U.S. Representative Derek Kilmer will visit every county in the 6th District to meet with constituents, LOCAL BUSINESS LEADERS AND STAKEHOLDERS in a “State of the District” tour.
    Rep. Kilmer will hold meetings throughout the region during the upcoming district work period to better understand the concerns of his constituents and PROMOTE HIS PLANS for economic development.
    During the “State of the District” tour, Kilmer will hold roundtable discussions on federal workforce issues, environmental issues, small business issues and education issues.
    Additionally, he will hold meetings with seniors, veterans and attend “Kilmer at Your Company” events where he is accessible to a company’s workforce. The Gig Harbor Democrat will also speak to Rotary Clubs and other organizations during the tour.
    “Building a strong and healthy economy in the region begins with conversation,” Kilmer said. “I’m looking forward to visiting every county AND GETTING INPUT on ways we can grow our economy, create jobs, and solve problems for folks here at home.”

    ————————————————————————————-

    NEW REPORT: Kilmer Releases Detailed Economic Development Plan for Olympic Peninsula
    Jan 17, 2014
    Press Release
    In light of the persistent high unemployment rate on the Olympic Peninsula and after months of meetings with constituents to discuss ways to improve the economy, today Representative Derek Kilmer released the Olympic Peninsula Economic Development Initiative. This six-point plan lays out ideas, bills, and tools to strengthen the foundations of economic growth, promote innovation and entrepreneurism, and to protect natural resources.
    Click here to read Representative Kilmer’s Olympic Peninsula Economic Development Initiative.pdf.
    “Over the course of the last year, I’ve met with a wide range of constituents to discuss just what it will take to get our local economy really going again,” Representative Kilmer wrote in the Olympic Peninsula Economic Development Initiative. “As someone who was born and raised on the Peninsula and spent a decade working in economic development, I know we actually have a lot of the key building blocks in place. We have a skilled workforce, strong ports, abundant natural resources, innovators, and entrepreneurs who are laying the foundation for long-term economic growth.
    “It’s also clear that the federal government can help leverage these strengths to boost our local economy. That is why I am putting forward the Olympic Peninsula Economic Development Initiative—to outline ways in which we can advance policies that will help spur economic growth, strengthen the long-term viability of key industries, and protect our precious natural resources for future generations.”
    The six components of the Olympic Peninsula Economic Development Initiative are:
    Growing Opportunities in the Timber Industry
    Bringing Jobs Back to America, Invest in Rural Areas
    Enhancing Our Infrastructure
    Protecting Our Fisheries
    Supporting Innovation and New Market Opportunities
    Promoting Competitiveness through Life-Long Learning
    ————————————————————————————


  • Obamacare Hoodwink?

    A SURVEY LAST WEEK BY THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER FOUND THAT JUST 19 PERCENT OF AMERICANS TRUST GOVERNMENT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT JUST ABOUT ALWAYS OR MOST OF THE TIME.

    SO? HOW ARE THE OTHER 81% OF “WE THE PEOPLE” FEELING?

    ABOUT BEING HOODWINKED INTO OBAMACARE?
    THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT HAS BETRAYED OUR TRUST

    THE OBAMACARE LAW, PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST?

    THEY HAVE DECEIVED US WITH PROMISES AND CONCEALED THE TRUE OUT OF POCKET COST FROM US, CONCEALED CO-PAYS, DEDUCTIBLES, HOSPITAL COSTS AND, ESPECIALLY BY ELABORATELY THE FEIGNING OF THEIR GOOD INTENTIONS SO AS TO GAIN AN END AND DISILLUSIONED US ALL.
    ————————————————————–

    TRICK OR TREAT? OCT.31 2013

    “YOU CAN’T FOOL ME!”
    undeceive – free from deception or illusion

    THE PROBLEMS WITH HEALTHCARE.GOV ARE NOW WELL DOCUMENTED AND CONTINUED WITH AN OUTAGE ON SUNDAY. But even if the website gets fixed by the end of November, as the White House promises, potentially BIGGER PROBLEMS LIE AHEAD.

    Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

    —————————————————————
    SHALL WE DEFINE HOW WE HAVE BEEN HOODWINKED ET CETRA.

    SYNONYMS:
    deceived, betrayed, mislead, beguiled, deluded, duped, HOODWINKED, bamboozled, double-crossed

    These verbs mean to lead another into error, danger, or a disadvantageous position by underhand means.

    Deceive involves the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth

    Betray implies treachery

    Mislead means to lead in the wrong direction or into error of thought or action

    Beguile suggests deceiving by means of charm or allure

    To delude is to mislead the mind or judgment.

    Dupe implies playing upon another’s susceptibilities or naiveté

    Hoodwink refers to deluding by trickery

    Bamboozle means to delude by the use of such tactics as hoaxing or artful persuasion:

    Double-cross implies the betrayal of a confidence or the willful breaking of a pledge
    ________________________________________
    deceive vb (tr)
    To mislead by deliberate misrepresentation or lies

    Archaic to disappoint his hopes were deceived

    [FROM OLD FRENCH DECEIVRE, FROM LATIN DĒCIPERE TO ENSNARE, CHEAT, FROM CAPERE TO TAKE]

    To mislead by a false appearance or statement; trick. to practice deceit.

    [1250–1300; MIDDLE ENGLISH < OLD FRENCH DECEIVRE < LATIN DĒCIPERE LITERALLY, TO ENSNARE] Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms Verb 1. deceive – be false to; be dishonest with cozen, delude, lead on betray, sell – deliver to an enemy by treachery; “Judas sold Jesus”; “The spy betrayed his country” victimise, victimize – make a victim of; “I WAS VICTIMIZED BY THIS CON-MAN” chisel, cheat – engage in deceitful behavior; practice trickery or fraud; “Who’s chiseling on the side?” shill – act as a shill; “The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up” flim-flam, fob, fox, play a trick on, play tricks, pull a fast one on, trick, play a joke on – deceive somebody; befool, fool, gull – make a fool or dupe of cheat on, cuckold, wander, betray, cheat – hoax, ensnare, entrap, frame, set up – take or catch as if in a snare or trap; humbug – trick or deceive 2. deceive – cause someone to believe an untruth; lead astray, betray misinform, mislead – Give false or misleading information to personate, pose, impersonate – Pretend to be someone you are not; sometimes with fraudulent intentions; lead by the nose, play false, pull the wool over someone’s eyes, bamboozle, hoodwink, snow – CONCEAL ONE’S TRUE MOTIVES FROM ESPECIALLY BY ELABORATELY FEIGNING GOOD INTENTIONS SO AS TO GAIN AN END; Cod, dupe, put one across, put one over, slang, take in, gull, befool, fool, put on – fool or hoax; ” ———————————————————- “YOU CAN’T FOOL ME!” UNDECEIVED – free from deception or illusion Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc. ________________________________________ DECEIVE verb take in, trick, fool (informal), cheat, con (informal), kid (informal), stiff (slang), Sting (informal), mislead, betray, lead (someone) on (informal), hoax, dupe, beguile, delude, swindle, outwit, ensnare, bamboozle (informal), HOODWINKED, entrap, double-cross (informal), take for a ride (informal), pull a fast one on (slang), cozen, pull the wool over (someone’s) eyes Be deceived by something or someone be taken in by, fall for, swallow (informal) Take the bait, be made a fool of by, be the dupe of, Swallow hook, line, and sinker (informal) Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc. ________________________________________ Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2