Agenda Bill #110-10 – Interlocal Agmt with Master Licensing Service (MLS)

ABSTAIN. I believe that this is a legitimate partnering with the Master Licensing Service. I do object to one of the unfortunate consequences. Specifically, with this new agreement, any business that has been operating under a Master License through the state, but has not obtained a city license will be required to do so. This will be more convenient to the city, for sure, and will ensure that the city has a hand in the revenues of this business. This is already codified in law, thus it is the legal right of the city to require it. However, the change will be to the detriment to freedom regardless of whether it was illegal in the first place.  Because I could not justify voting against it, I voted abstain.

Agenda Bill #111-10 – Personnel Policy-Ch. 9-“Other Leaves of absence”

NO. I object to one phrase within this update. Specifically, the following:

“During a period of military conflict declared by the President or Congress, an employee who is the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserves is entitled to up to fifteen (15) days of unpaid leave while his/her spouse is on leave from deployment, or before and up to deployment.” [emphasis mine]

While I understand that often such language is required by federal or state mandates, there is a higher responsibility that I have. Specifically, I am beholden to my voluntary oath of office to uphold the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Washington. Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the enumerated powers of Congress. Among them is the power to “declare war.” The authority to declare war is unique to Congress. The President does not have the authority to declare war. Therefore, I strongly object to the wording that seems to give legitimacy to the declaration by the President of a military conflict. Otherwise, I would have voted in favor of this agenda bill.

Agenda Bill #113-10 – SPSA #1 with Murray Smith & Associates (MSA)-water Rights Assistance for the Comp. Water System Plan

YES. This agreement should give the City a better understanding of its own water rights. The painful part of this bill is the price tag. At over $114,000, it is a major project. It was budgeted, and so these funds are not in excess of what the City can be spending in regards to its agreed upon budget. However, having said that, there is an important point to notice with such professional services agreements. When the State or Federal legislators impose standards or mandates upon lower jurisdictions, the burden of those regulations are felt in this exact manner. If the City does not have the man-power or expertise in the particular subject matter, the City must hire outside professionals to help with the complying with the regulations.