Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
BREAKING NEWS...
Frog Mt. Wins at the Washington State Court of Appeals
MARTIN MELLISH, No. 37583-4-II
Respondent,
v.
FROG MOUNTAIN PET CARE, HAROLD
and JANE ELYEA,
Appellants,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent.
Harold Elyea owner of Frog Mt. Pet Care agrees to give an exclusive video interview to Jeffco101 regarding this matter and his dealings with DCD.
Published FACTS from the decision;
Frog Mountain applied for a conditional use permit and minor variance in order to
remodel and expand its Jefferson County (County) dog and cat boarding facility. Mellish owns
property adjacent to the facility. He opposed the application because he thought the proposed
expansion was too large and would increase the facility’s noise, interfering with his enjoyment of
his property.
On June 20, 2007, the deputy hearing examiner filed his decision granting Frog
Mountain’s request. The next day, the County mailed a notice of the decision to all the interested
parties and adjacent property owners. Mellish moved for reconsideration on June 28, but did not
notify Frog Mountain of the motion.2 The County denied the motion on July 20 and mailed a
notice of decision on July 21. It issued Frog Mountain’s requested permit on July 21 when it
denied the motion.
On August 10, 2007, Mellish filed a land use petition at the Clallam County Superior
Court challenging the County’s decision. This was 20 days after the County mailed the order
denying reconsideration and issued the permit, but 50 days after the County mailed the deputy
hearings examiner’s June 20 decision granting Frog Mountain’s permit.
2 The Jefferson County Code apparently does not require a party who moves for reconsideration
or the County to notify the adverse party of the motion until the hearing examiner enters the
decision. See JCC 18.40.310, .330. But due process requires notice reasonably calculated to
apprise parties of the nature and character of proceedings which will affect them. Nisqually Delta
Ass’n v. City of DuPont, 103 Wn.2d 720, 727, 696 P.2d 1222 (1985); Duffy v. Dep’t of Soc. &
Health Servs., 90 Wn.2d 673, 678-79, 585 P.2d 470 (1978). We are concerned that the Code
may invite due process violations, but Frog Mountain did not appeal on this ground.
* more to follow with Jeffco101 exclusive video interview with Harold Elyea
MARTIN MELLISH, No. 37583-4-II
Respondent,
v.
FROG MOUNTAIN PET CARE, HAROLD
and JANE ELYEA,
Appellants,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent.
Harold Elyea owner of Frog Mt. Pet Care agrees to give an exclusive video interview to Jeffco101 regarding this matter and his dealings with DCD.
Published FACTS from the decision;
Frog Mountain applied for a conditional use permit and minor variance in order to
remodel and expand its Jefferson County (County) dog and cat boarding facility. Mellish owns
property adjacent to the facility. He opposed the application because he thought the proposed
expansion was too large and would increase the facility’s noise, interfering with his enjoyment of
his property.
On June 20, 2007, the deputy hearing examiner filed his decision granting Frog
Mountain’s request. The next day, the County mailed a notice of the decision to all the interested
parties and adjacent property owners. Mellish moved for reconsideration on June 28, but did not
notify Frog Mountain of the motion.2 The County denied the motion on July 20 and mailed a
notice of decision on July 21. It issued Frog Mountain’s requested permit on July 21 when it
denied the motion.
On August 10, 2007, Mellish filed a land use petition at the Clallam County Superior
Court challenging the County’s decision. This was 20 days after the County mailed the order
denying reconsideration and issued the permit, but 50 days after the County mailed the deputy
hearings examiner’s June 20 decision granting Frog Mountain’s permit.
2 The Jefferson County Code apparently does not require a party who moves for reconsideration
or the County to notify the adverse party of the motion until the hearing examiner enters the
decision. See JCC 18.40.310, .330. But due process requires notice reasonably calculated to
apprise parties of the nature and character of proceedings which will affect them. Nisqually Delta
Ass’n v. City of DuPont, 103 Wn.2d 720, 727, 696 P.2d 1222 (1985); Duffy v. Dep’t of Soc. &
Health Servs., 90 Wn.2d 673, 678-79, 585 P.2d 470 (1978). We are concerned that the Code
may invite due process violations, but Frog Mountain did not appeal on this ground.
* more to follow with Jeffco101 exclusive video interview with Harold Elyea
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
BREAKING NEWS...
Jefferson County Commissioners Approve Port of Port Townsend Rezone
Commissioners Sullivan, Austin and Johnson voted 3-0 in favor of rezoning approximately 25 acres at the Jefferson County International Airport for light industrial development. This historic vote will lead the way to more family wage jobs in Jefferson County. The vote came after three meetings and countless hours of DCD staff time. Videos will be up in the coming days.
Great job Commissioner Sullivan, Johnson and Austin!
Commissioners Sullivan, Austin and Johnson voted 3-0 in favor of rezoning approximately 25 acres at the Jefferson County International Airport for light industrial development. This historic vote will lead the way to more family wage jobs in Jefferson County. The vote came after three meetings and countless hours of DCD staff time. Videos will be up in the coming days.
Great job Commissioner Sullivan, Johnson and Austin!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Belenski v. Jefferson County
David Alvarez and Mike Belenski
Clallam Judge Denies Belenski Preliminary Injunction Request against Jefferson County
Mike Belenski filed for preliminary injunction on Thursday, December 3, 2009, in neighboring Clallam County. Four other Jefferson County concerned citizens filed declarations in support of Belenski request. The hearing yesterday lasted 30 minutes. Chief Civil Deputy David Alvarez represented Jefferson County and Mike Belenski represented himself. Judge Taylor gave each side fifteen minutes to argue their positions. Although, Judge Taylor denied Belenski motion for injunction he did approve for trial based on the facts (videos will be up in the coming days).
During the week of November 9, 2009 (see videos below), Commissioner David Sullivan has either stopped speakers from talking or interrupted them during public comment.
November 9, 2009 - Larry Carter
November 9, 2009 - Jim Fritz
November 9, 2009 - Mike Belenski
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
D'Amico Sets the Record Straight!
Yep, Commissioner Sullivan took the law into his own hands, AGAIN! He's making Jessie James and the Hole in the Wall Gang look like altar boys...
Commissioner Sullivan invoked sanctions against the citizens of Jefferson County and the United States of America just because they shared views different from himself. Commissioner Sullivan's attempt was failed and he was caught once again. Likely because Jeffco101 exposed the truth and brought it to the attention of the citizens of Jefferson County and the world wide web. Trying to silence critics through retaliation with rules that were enacted behind close doors have failed. What will be the cost to Jefferson County this time $10,000, $50,000, $250,000, $1M ? Free speech is a big deal to me, I don't know about the rest of you. I know that my rights were violated and I plan on taking legal action effective immediately.
Commissioner Sullivan is a rouge operator and has a historical track record of roughness'. Take the phone records case for example. All the other Commissioners and staff, which had received my phone records request, responded with open arms and provided the records. Commissioner Sullivan denied me my right to review his (our) phone records, which cost the county $41,000, plus the County's attorneys fees. Only because he was hiding something that would impact him personally. Commissioner Sullivan is unaware, but I have his internet browsing history for that time period from his computer, which I will disclose at a later date. The records were provided in person by none other than Mr. Allan Sartin, prior to his exit. You see, I know the truth and I know what lies beneath just as you do Commissioner Sullivan.
More recently, Commissioner Sullivan had $10,000 of matching county money put into his personal retirement account, while we continue to lay county employees off. Additional public records request will be needed to find out why, I'll do that tomorrow.
Prior to that, Commissioner Sullivan lead the charge in attempting to shut down a local small thriving business simply because of noise. Even though the county didn't have a noise ordinance. This business has now prevailed in the courts and is allowed to operate, although not fully. Soon you will hear the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say, "It's ugly". Mr. Phil Andrus you have a personal invite to sit down with me to go over the evidence. After that, you too will be at the BOCC standing up for your rights because the machine may coming after you next.
Lastly, when speaking out to preserve your rights you risk alienation by the elite wannabe's in Port Townsend. Who by the way drifted into MY town in their dingy late one night. We will always remember the name Commissioner David Sullivan, because he will be known for being the Commissioner that brought down Jefferson County as we know it today and replaced with the Jefferson County I grew up with.
Commissioner Sullivan invoked sanctions against the citizens of Jefferson County and the United States of America just because they shared views different from himself. Commissioner Sullivan's attempt was failed and he was caught once again. Likely because Jeffco101 exposed the truth and brought it to the attention of the citizens of Jefferson County and the world wide web. Trying to silence critics through retaliation with rules that were enacted behind close doors have failed. What will be the cost to Jefferson County this time $10,000, $50,000, $250,000, $1M ? Free speech is a big deal to me, I don't know about the rest of you. I know that my rights were violated and I plan on taking legal action effective immediately.
Commissioner Sullivan is a rouge operator and has a historical track record of roughness'. Take the phone records case for example. All the other Commissioners and staff, which had received my phone records request, responded with open arms and provided the records. Commissioner Sullivan denied me my right to review his (our) phone records, which cost the county $41,000, plus the County's attorneys fees. Only because he was hiding something that would impact him personally. Commissioner Sullivan is unaware, but I have his internet browsing history for that time period from his computer, which I will disclose at a later date. The records were provided in person by none other than Mr. Allan Sartin, prior to his exit. You see, I know the truth and I know what lies beneath just as you do Commissioner Sullivan.
More recently, Commissioner Sullivan had $10,000 of matching county money put into his personal retirement account, while we continue to lay county employees off. Additional public records request will be needed to find out why, I'll do that tomorrow.
Prior to that, Commissioner Sullivan lead the charge in attempting to shut down a local small thriving business simply because of noise. Even though the county didn't have a noise ordinance. This business has now prevailed in the courts and is allowed to operate, although not fully. Soon you will hear the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say, "It's ugly". Mr. Phil Andrus you have a personal invite to sit down with me to go over the evidence. After that, you too will be at the BOCC standing up for your rights because the machine may coming after you next.
Lastly, when speaking out to preserve your rights you risk alienation by the elite wannabe's in Port Townsend. Who by the way drifted into MY town in their dingy late one night. We will always remember the name Commissioner David Sullivan, because he will be known for being the Commissioner that brought down Jefferson County as we know it today and replaced with the Jefferson County I grew up with.
Leader Article on Public Records Forum
Forum answers questions on open government, public records
By Barney Burke of the Leader
Thursday, December 10, 2009
More than 100 people attended a forum on open government Wednesday night at Port Townsend High School, including many local elected officials.
Sponsored by the Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG), a panel comprised of Tim Ford, ombudsman for the Washington Attorney General's Office, State Archivist Jerry Handfield, Toby Nixon, WCOG president and former legislator, and Wayne King, Jefferson County PUD commissioner, gave an overview of Washington's laws on open meetings and public records.
In the Q&A session that followed, many of the attendees zeroed in on the recent debate about whether the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners goes to far in restricting public comment.
Responding to a question about time limits on speakers, Nixon explained that state law does not require government bodies to have public comment periods during regular business meetings. "If they provide one, it's been pretty well established that you can't control content." But, he said, boards can prohibit disruptive behavior and set reasonable time limits.
Ford said that time limits are constitutional because they are content-neutral. And, he added, there's an expectation that the board conducts the people's business expeditiously even though some people may want to comment at great length.
Larry Carter, a frequent speaker at Board of Commissioner meetings, asked the panel if about a recent decision by the risk pool that insures Jefferson County to no longer cover fines and court costs for public record violations; the pool recently paid $41,000 to settle such a claim with Joe D'Amico. "Is that a good thing?" Carter asked.
"To the extent that it causes agencies to pay closer attention to law and take less risk, it's a good thing," Nixon answered. However, he noted that about 90 percent of violations come from a lack of training.
Ford added that there have been some egregious violations, such as when an official at the tiny city of Mesa sent a letter encouraging someone to sue if they didn't like the city's response to a records request. That judgment against the city may bankrupt it, he said.
Another man asked about whether a willful violation of the public records law could lead to a recall of an elected official. "A willful violation probably would be grounds for recall," said Nixon. Washington law requires a judge to certify misconduct by an official before a recall petition goes to voters.
Ford explained that even in his job at the Attorney General's Office, he has no enforcement power, so people have to go to court if they feel that a government agency has not complied with the Public Records Act.
Ford and Nixon said that WCOG is proposing a new agency, similar to what exists in Pennsylvania, where people can take public records complaints. As proposed by WCOG, the new agency would enable ordinary citizens to bring complaints, and the agency could force violators to comply. It would be quicker, less costly, and not require attorneys, they said. And it would still allow people to go to court if they were not satisfied with the agency's decision.
Nixon also suggested that, in addition to reviewing hundreds of exemptions in the Public Records Act, the law ought to be revised so that willful violators could be subject to criminal penalties. However, it's not clear whether a county prosecutor would file charges in such cases, he said.
"It was a great forum," said David Sullivan afterwards. The chair of the Board of Commissioners, he's the target of a lawsuit filed last week by Mike Belenski. Belenski and some of the other regular speakers at county commissioner meetings feel that Sullivan goes too far in trying to ensure decorum at the expense of free speech.
Sullivan said he had a "good conversation" with Ford prior to the forum. "You can intervene on behavior that leads to disruptive behavior," said Sullivan, paraphrasing Ford. However, he said that it's hard to give explicit examples of a behavior that would clearly lead to disruptive behavior.
"I don't limit content," Sullivan continued. "I remind people of expectations and let them speak."
"All three commissioners were here," Carter said of the forum. "I'm glad to see that."
By Barney Burke of the Leader
Thursday, December 10, 2009
More than 100 people attended a forum on open government Wednesday night at Port Townsend High School, including many local elected officials.
Sponsored by the Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG), a panel comprised of Tim Ford, ombudsman for the Washington Attorney General's Office, State Archivist Jerry Handfield, Toby Nixon, WCOG president and former legislator, and Wayne King, Jefferson County PUD commissioner, gave an overview of Washington's laws on open meetings and public records.
In the Q&A session that followed, many of the attendees zeroed in on the recent debate about whether the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners goes to far in restricting public comment.
Responding to a question about time limits on speakers, Nixon explained that state law does not require government bodies to have public comment periods during regular business meetings. "If they provide one, it's been pretty well established that you can't control content." But, he said, boards can prohibit disruptive behavior and set reasonable time limits.
Ford said that time limits are constitutional because they are content-neutral. And, he added, there's an expectation that the board conducts the people's business expeditiously even though some people may want to comment at great length.
Larry Carter, a frequent speaker at Board of Commissioner meetings, asked the panel if about a recent decision by the risk pool that insures Jefferson County to no longer cover fines and court costs for public record violations; the pool recently paid $41,000 to settle such a claim with Joe D'Amico. "Is that a good thing?" Carter asked.
"To the extent that it causes agencies to pay closer attention to law and take less risk, it's a good thing," Nixon answered. However, he noted that about 90 percent of violations come from a lack of training.
Ford added that there have been some egregious violations, such as when an official at the tiny city of Mesa sent a letter encouraging someone to sue if they didn't like the city's response to a records request. That judgment against the city may bankrupt it, he said.
Another man asked about whether a willful violation of the public records law could lead to a recall of an elected official. "A willful violation probably would be grounds for recall," said Nixon. Washington law requires a judge to certify misconduct by an official before a recall petition goes to voters.
Ford explained that even in his job at the Attorney General's Office, he has no enforcement power, so people have to go to court if they feel that a government agency has not complied with the Public Records Act.
Ford and Nixon said that WCOG is proposing a new agency, similar to what exists in Pennsylvania, where people can take public records complaints. As proposed by WCOG, the new agency would enable ordinary citizens to bring complaints, and the agency could force violators to comply. It would be quicker, less costly, and not require attorneys, they said. And it would still allow people to go to court if they were not satisfied with the agency's decision.
Nixon also suggested that, in addition to reviewing hundreds of exemptions in the Public Records Act, the law ought to be revised so that willful violators could be subject to criminal penalties. However, it's not clear whether a county prosecutor would file charges in such cases, he said.
"It was a great forum," said David Sullivan afterwards. The chair of the Board of Commissioners, he's the target of a lawsuit filed last week by Mike Belenski. Belenski and some of the other regular speakers at county commissioner meetings feel that Sullivan goes too far in trying to ensure decorum at the expense of free speech.
Sullivan said he had a "good conversation" with Ford prior to the forum. "You can intervene on behavior that leads to disruptive behavior," said Sullivan, paraphrasing Ford. However, he said that it's hard to give explicit examples of a behavior that would clearly lead to disruptive behavior.
"I don't limit content," Sullivan continued. "I remind people of expectations and let them speak."
"All three commissioners were here," Carter said of the forum. "I'm glad to see that."
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
BREAKING NEWS...
Belenski Files for Preliminary Injunction against Jefferson County
Mike Belenski filed for preliminary injunction yesterday against Jefferson County in neighboring Clallam County. Four other concerned Jefferson County citizens filed supporting declarations. The order to show cause was signed by Superior Court Judge Ken Williams. A hearing is set for Friday, December 11, 1330 hrs, in Clallam County Superior Court to determine if a permanent injunction should be issued against Jefferson County. During the week of November 9, 2009 (see videos below), Commissioner David Sullivan has either stopped speakers from talking or interrupted them during public comment.
November 9, 2009 - Larry Carter
November 9, 2009 - Jim Fritz
November 9, 2009 - Mike Belenski
One of the causes in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction listed; A. Infringing on the constitutionally protected rights of speakers comments that are made during the public comment period of BOARD meetings.
" It's ironic that on the eve of an historic date such as December 7, when so many of our past and present veterans have fought to keep American free, that the battle for free speech even needs to be discussed."
Joe D'Amico, Jeffco101, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
