Charter Debates Hit Home In Lynden: Citizen Commission Gets Down To Business

By Greg Thames

LYNDEN, Wash. – “Remember the small cities,” urged Lynden Mayor Scott Korthuis, setting the stage for a Charter Review Commission meeting that would grapple with fundamental questions of local representation and power at the Lynden Library. Mayor Korthuis painted a portrait of a county at a crossroads, highlighting concerns about rapid growth, water rights, and housing costs that have “gotten crazy.” His plea to remember the small cities – which collectively outweigh Bellingham’s population – underscored the evening’s theme of balanced representation.

Debate Over Meeting Rules

The commission discussed three important changes to the county’s charter, the document that outlines how the local government works. The first change, proposed by Commissioner Jon Mutchler, was about setting clear rules for how future charter review commissions begin their work.  It suggested that the convener—the commissioner who gets the most votes—should decide the rules for the beginning of the first meeting. Jon Mutchler dubbed it the “this will save one month’s worth of confusion” suggesting it could have prevented the confusion that marked this commission’s early meetings.

The proposal sparked a detailed procedural debate. Commissioner Joe Elenbaas, drawing from his experience with multiple charter review commissions, argued for a different approach. He suggested the convener should “propose temporary operating rules for adoption by the body” rather than unilaterally determining them, emphasizing the importance of collective decision-making from the start.

Commissioner Maya Morales countered this perspective, arguing that part of the amendment’s value was its ability to prevent procedural delays. “I feel like part of the importance of this motion is to allow the convener to set rules so that the meeting can begin and the body does not waste time in that very initial process,” she explained. Despite these varying viewpoints on the specific mechanism for establishing rules, the commission passed the amendment 11-4, prioritizing the need for clear initial structure in future commissions. Commissioner Jon Mutchler stated that this amendment “is a gift to future commissioners”, helping them with a smoother start.  Which now places the amendment on the November ballot.

Should the Prosecuting Attorney Be Non-Partisan?

The second amendment, also from Commissioner Jon Mutchler, proposed making the prosecuting attorney position non-partisan, revealing several layers of complexity during discussion. Current Whatcom County Prosecutor Eric Richey joined via video link. Commissioner Lindsay Graham Elenbaas pressed for specifics, asking Prosecutor Richey, What situations had arisen that made him think the position should be non-partisan. Prosecutor Eric Richey noted that while his approach to the job wouldn’t change, he shared “it’s the perception that’s in the community” that matters.  Commissioner Kelly raised a technical question about filing requirements, learning that candidates can currently file as independents even though it’s a partisan position. Commissioner Kelly seemed to believe that since a candidate running for this position could run as an independent, there was no need to change this filing requirement.

A critical issue emerged regarding succession and vacancies. Commissioner Andrew Reding explained that under current partisan rules, if the prosecutor resigns, their replacement must come from the same political party, with the county council selecting from party nominees. Making the position non-partisan would change this process entirely, allowing council appointments regardless of party affiliation. Which he publicly supported, but thought the change to a non partisan position should start at the next regularly scheduled election.

Further complications arose around election timing. Unlike other county-wide offices that run in odd-numbered years, the prosecutor runs in even years alongside judges. This unique timing raised questions about how and when any changes would take effect. This scheduling difference, combined with concerns about transition procedures and vacancy protocols, led commissioners to postpone and continue the discussion until March 13 to develop a comprehensive transition language.

Signature Requirements for Ballot Measures

The third amendment, presented by Commissioner Andrew Reding, tackled the thorny issue of signature requirements for referendums and charter amendments. While Commissioner Reding cited historical figures showing a maximum of 8,890 validated signatures ever collected, the accuracy of these numbers came into question. The commission’s legal counsel raised an important point: the auditor’s office typically stops counting signatures once they reach the required threshold, suggesting the historical totals cited might not reflect the actual number of signatures gathered.

Ashley Butenschoen, a community member who worked on a recent petition, spoke from the audience and shared her experience. “We gathered 9,620 signatures and stopped early,” she revealed, emphasizing that they could have collected even more if needed. Her testimony challenged Commissioner Reding’s argument about historical signature-gathering trends, leading to a broader discussion about setting the right threshold. Commissioners debated how to strike a balance—making it easier for citizens to get initiatives on the ballot while ensuring the process remains rigorous enough to prevent abuse. Commissioner Maya Morales suggested having different requirements for referendums and initiatives, while Commissioner Chadwick proposed raising the referendum percentage to 11 or 12 percent.

The complexity of the issue and uncertainty around the historical numbers led the commission to postpone the final discussion to February 27, passing 13-2, to allow time for more accurate data collection and analysis of various percentage thresholds.

Looking Ahead

The night ended abruptly at the library’s closing time, but not before Commissioner Joe Elenbaas, a veteran of multiple charter review commissions, reminded his colleagues that these debates about citizen access to government have shaped Whatcom County politics for decades

As commissioners packed up their papers, the evening stood as a testament to the ongoing work of citizen governance: messy, methodical, and monumentally important to the future of Whatcom County.

The next Charter Review Commission meeting will be held from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm on Thursday, February 27th at the Whatcom County Library in Deming, located at 5044 Mt Baker Hwy.

The commission is expected to hear from County Elections Director Stacy Henthorn and address unfinished agenda items from this meeting. These include debates on eliminating at-large county council positions by reducing the council from seven to five members, replacing the salary commission with a fixed schedule of elected officials’ salaries that automatically adjust for the cost of living—potentially lowering county executives’ salaries below that of the state governor and requiring salaries for Charter Review Commissioners. 

Additionally, the commission will continue its systematic review of the county charter, with a focus on the legislative branch. 

Stay informed by following Bellingham Metro News coverage to see how these potential changes might impact you and your community.

#WhatcomCharter, #WhatcomGov, #CharterWatch2025