It’s not especially rare for governments to clash on matters of growth.
Such growing pains often arise in areas where two or more entities wield dueling influence while carrying differing views for the future.
For that reason, it’s not damning to find the city manager of Chehalis exchanging contentious messages with Lewis County officials over policies and procedures in a urban growth area (see today’s front page story).
Still, its disconcerting to discover elected officials and civic leaders communicating with a level of passive aggression that’s frustratingly petty, all out of the sight of the public.
Maybe it was an effort to solve a problem behind closed doors without the pesky and occasionally messy involvement of voters. County officials have at best made little effort to present the issue to the public, and Chehalis officials appeared likewise content to allow the matter to fester in an exchange of letters.
At stake is the management of a geographic area roughly equivalent to the current size of Chehalis. One would think such an issue would be aired in a public meeting, and that assumption would technically be correct. All three Lewis County commissioners — Bill Schulte, Edna Fund and Gary Stamper — applied their signatures to a letter announcing their intentions to eliminate the longstanding deal that allowed Chehalis city government the ability to partially chart the course for the UGA after a vote.
The interlocal agreement was approved in 2006 during a Monday meeting of the Board of Lewis County commissioners. The weekly gathering is the most visible to the public, akin to a city council meeting.
Instead of broaching the issue in that venue, though, the announcement of the elimination of the agreement was signed during a department-level meeting on July 28, according to the commissioners.
A matter as important as control over a large area’s permitting and land use regulations deserved a better forum.
In other ways, the apparent dispute between Chehalis and Lewis County presents some disconcerting realities, greatest of which might be claims of an “adversarial” approach to governance and cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions.
The Chronicle has filed public records requests for all correspondence between the two entities since the beginning of the year.
It’s the same tactic that allowed the newspaper to learn about the conflict to begin with.
It shouldn’t take a public records request for the public to be made aware of a power struggle that affects their lives and abilities to develop their own property.
While requirements for decision-making by elected officials were likely met on a technical level, we believe our public leaders should be held to a higher standard.
