Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Ranked Choice Voting Research

At one of the recent Pierce County Charter Review Commission meetings, several assertions were made about Ranked Choice Voting that deserved further research.

San Francisco County uses Ranked Choice Voting. They use optically scanned ballots that are counted by machine. The model number on the hardware is 4C-400. I believe Pierce County uses optically scanned ballots that are counted by the same hardware. San Francisco has some additional software to count the Ranked Choice votes. Pierce County would have to buy the additional software to implement Ranked Choice Voting.

Previous to using Ranked Choice Voting, San Francisco put all of the candidates on the general election ballot and, if no one won a majority of the votes in the general election, an additional run-off election was held in December. With the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting, the December run-off election has been eliminated. Thus the costs of running San Francisco's elections in 2005 were lower than the costs of running them in 2003. The savings were over $2 million.

Seperately, it was noted in our discussions that both Australia and Ireland use Ranked Choice Voting to elect their legislative bodies. These two countries use Ranked Choice Voting to elect partisan officials. In Australia, the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals and other political parties contest elections. In Ireland, the Finna Fail, the Finna Gael, the Democratic Left and other political parties contest run candidates.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Upcoming Meetings of Pierce County Charter Review Commission

These are the tentative dates and locations for the next three meetings of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission.

1/24 Tuesday 7 pm
- Oasis of Hope, 1937 South G Street, Tacoma
- County Executive John Ladenburg
- Rich McGrue, Chair, Pierce County Ethics Commission
- Public Comment

1/26 Thursday 7 pm
- Goodman Middle School, 3701 38 Avenue NW, Gig Harbor
- Public Comment

1/28 Saturday 8:30 am
- LaQuinta Inn, Oak Room, 1425 East 27th Street, Tacoma
- Planning

Monday, January 16, 2006

Lewis public comment on Ranked Choice Voting

Ranked Choice Voting

This is the commentary Erne Lewis plans on making at the January 17 meeting of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission.

Most eligible voters do not vote in most elections.

Of those who do vote, most are dissatisfied with the candidate they felt obligated to vote for. They usually explain that they voted for the lesser of two evils.

But one factor strongly producing a low voter turnout is the perception that if they vote for the person they really want, their vote ‘won’t count.’ It’s a phrase we have all heard more than we can count. They believe they have to vote for someone who stands a really good chance of winning or not vote at all. They frequently chose not to vote.

And that turns the political process over to the organizers; to the lobbyists, to the political aristocrats the long-term incumbents who control the who, what, where and when of government.

That process has so disgusted so many citizens and former voters that it is difficult to believe that politicians and bureaucrats could sink below the dismal low esteem in which the public now holds them. But they will and we will all suffer if we fail to find a better system for discovering our leaders than the corruption-prone two party system we now have.

We need a system that brings those individuals into the political system who now believe they are practically excluded—by money, power politics, or whatever. And if potential voters have the opportunity to rank their choices they will be a great deal more interested in the voting process.

That is basically the principal involved in Ranked Choice Voting. It goes by many names and has a history dating back to about 1850. It’s been used successfully in other states and countries. I would like to see Pierce County lead the counties of Washington State in demonstrating the system here.

Here is how it would be explained to the voter:

In the Ranked Choice Voting System each voter, without regard to who might win, ranks in preference from among all the candidates their first choice, then the candidate who would be a second choice, and then third choice, and so on. The voter may also include that politically strong candidate that he or she doesn’t want, but would prefer over that other creep who might actually win if we don’t help defeat him.

When the votes are counted—assuming there were several candidates—if someone doesn’t win more than 50% of the first choice votes then the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and the votes are counted again.

If there isn’t a winner the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the process is repeated until only a few candidates—maybe only 2 or 3 or 4— remain, and someone has more than 50% of the total votes counted.
The winner will be first choice for many and second choice for others and perhaps third or fourth or even fifth choice for a lot of voters. But that winner will be someone who can truly say he has the most support and the most genuine support of all the candidates who ran.

The beauty of the system is that it allows people to vote for the person they really want as their first choice without fear that their vote will cause their worst choice to win. More important, they may truly expect that sometimes their underdog candidate—the person lots of people hoped could win, and wanted to win but couldn’t vote for because he or she just didn’t stand a chance—will win.

It’s a system that tears away the power politics and lets voters select the candidates that they really want.

It could even be used to replace the primary. We could go directly to the general elections without the cost and bother of the primary. Now just think of that! If the political parties wanted to endorse one or more candidates, that very substantial cost would not be borne by the taxpayers.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Horne promotes Elected Sheriff

Prosecuting Attorney Gerry Horne writes in the Tacoma News Tribune about the need for a stronger Sheriff''s position and a weaker Executive position.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Additional Comments from Don Williams

Ladies and Gentlemen:

By way of introduction, I was the guy who presented four issues for the Commission's consideration at the January 12 meeting, and I passed out the printed summary. I live in District No. 4 (over two years) and before that lived in District No. 7 for over 14 years. I know several of you already and I look forward to meeting all of you at some point. You will be seeing and hearing from me often during the term of the Charter Review Commission.

It looks to me that if the Commission doesn't get defined at an early date what kinds of issues it is intended to look at and evaluate for voter consideration (i.e., prepare a Mission Statement), you will become bogged down as advocates come before you and present issues that are outside the scope and mission of the Charter Review Commission.

You need to list out for the public in a Mission Statement a fairly broad set of general issues that the Commission is supposed to be evaluating. I don't want you to narrow down so much that only a few issues can be presented, but some of the speakers at Thursday's meeting, although their topics are of vast interest to themselves and many others (myself, too), they just aren't of the class that can be considered by the Commission in its evaluation of what should be updated and/or changed in the County Charter.

In particular, topics like "how to staff the jail" and "occupancy of non-conforming dwellings" just aren't anywhere near what the Commission can even consider. While the presentation by the college professor on "what should be the voting structure" is right in line with what the Commission needs to look at because it is so much tied with the County Charter.

The Charter Commission is not the place to rewrite the Pierce County Code. During the course of the next few months, you will hear about all kinds of issues. Anyone who reads the Charter will see that it is at a very high level of how county government operates. I learn a lot when people address a group like the Charter Review Commission.

But, what is your mission in terms of what issues can you even consider taking action on? Your job is to listen to the public, use your own brains and deliberations, and then come up with a list of ballot issues to be voted on next Fall that affect the way Pierce County government is organized and operates. You're not able to re-write the Pierce County Code, land use regulations, the county building code, find new funding sources, say how much money should be spent on any one area, etc.

So, I suggest that the Commission put out some kind of a Mission Statement paper very soon that states very broadly what kinds of issues you are able to consider. I welcome anyone who wants to address the Commission in any way and present their views, but your task is very limited in scope and that limited scope needs to be set forth early.

If any of you feel the same way, you need to tell the Chair or Vice-Chair so they can be thinking about how to express the mission of the Charter Review Commission. Maybe one of you should draft a Mission Statement and present it at a meeting soon.

Just trying to help.

Regards, Don Williams

Friday, January 13, 2006

Letter from League of Women Voters

This is the language contained in the letter presented by the League of Women Voters at the January 12, 2006, Charter Review Commission Meeting.

January 12, 2006

THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS of Tacoma-Pierce County 702 Broadway, Suite 105, Tacoma, WA 98402-3710 (253) 272-1495

Statement submitted by Liz Kurnitz-Thurlow, President of the League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County to the Pierce County Charter ReviewCommission.

The League of Women Voters of Washington's position on Representative Government states that we support "state election laws allowing for more options for alternative election systems in governmental jurisdictions at both the state and local levels," and that "consideration should be given, when evaluating election systems, to how well they promote 'representative-ness,' citizen participation and accountability."

The League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County feels that I.R.V.(Instant Run-Off Voting) meets these criteria . It is an alternative election system. As someone ultimately ends up with a majority of the votes, it promotes 'representative-ness', and might even improve citizen participation, as people will get to vote for BOTH the candidate they really want, AND the one they figure could win.

We also feel that pioneering an election system can be very valuable for Pierce County and the whole state; we will determine the strengths and weaknesses, any difficulties, how well it works, and what voter education is necessary. The League would be happy to help with voter education programs.

Our mission statement says that: 'The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.'The League Board has voted to support I.R.V. We are proud that our members are in the forefront of this effort.

I urge the Pierce County Charter Review Commission to consider recommending that Pierce County elections use I.R.V. Thank you.

Signed by:Lyz Kurnitz-Thurlow, President League of Womens Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County

Don Williams presentation to Charter Review Commission

Presented By:
Donald S. Williams
Tacoma, WA


Before The Pierce County Charter Review Commission - January 12, 2006

Issues Presented

The following are suggestions for the Charter Review Commission to consider as changes to the Pierce County Charter.

1. Establish the position of Pierce County Councilmember to be non-partisan.

Comments: (1) Issues considered by the Pierce County Council have very seldom, if ever, been subject to partisan politics. (2) Citizens of each council district will be better represented when their council representative make decisions based solely on what is best for their district with no influence coming from their beholding to any political party. (3) Since primary elections would be totally open with the candidates no longer having any party affiliation, the voters would select from the full slate of candidates so everyone gets to chose their best choice.

2. Divide Pierce County into five council districts instead of the current seven.

Comment: The most obvious advantage of five versus seven council districts is the cost savings resulting in having fewer districts (and Councilmembers) compared to the seven that we now have. The Charter Review Commission should study the structure of other Washington State counties (and of other states, too) and determine if county government would operate at better efficiency (and at less cost) with fewer council districts.

3. Divide the office of Assessor-Treasurer into two distinct non-partisan offices: An Assessor and a Treasurer.

Comment:: The Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer (an elected official) is currently responsible for assessing the value of property in the county, sending out tax bills and collecting property taxes. The Assessor-Treasurer has no responsibility or accountability for the management of county funds. This is done by the Director of Finance, a position appointed by the County Executive. Under the current form, the County Executive, who is authorized by the
County Charter to negotiate contracts and spend taxpayer funds also has control of how these same funds are managed. It is the Director of Finance, not the Assessor-Treasurer, who structures, sells and negotiates the county debt (i.e., sells the bonds and manages the bond proceeds).

The management of taxpayer funds should become the responsibility of an elected non-partisan County Treasurer, similar to how the State of Washington structures this same function in its Office of the State Treasurer. The job of assessing property values and collecting property taxes should under the Charter become a separate function that belongs with a separate, non-partisan and elected County Assessor.

4. The sale of county debt (bonds) should become a two-step process with the Council first “authorizing the sale” and then later “accepting the sale” of county-issued bonds.

Comment: The current method of selling county bonds is that the Director of Finance sells the bonds and then the County Council approves the sale after it has happened. Under the two-step process, which is identical to how the State of Washington sells bonds through its Office of the State Treasurer, a resolution would be first passed by the County Council that authorizes the sale of the bonds, the maximum amount of the debt and how the debt service is to be structured. Then the Director of Finance (or if a separate County Treasurer is established, the Treasurer) offers the bonds for sale pending final approval by the Council. This way the County Council has an opportunity to approve the amount of the bonds as well as how the bond debt is structured before the bonds are offered for sale. The current method leaves the Council no choice but to approve the bond sale since it has already been completed by the County Executive through his/her appointed Director of Budget and Finance. If Suggestion No. 3 is selected, then the bonds are sold by the separate and elected County Treasurer, not the Director of Budget and Finance.

Please consider these for inclusion in the Pierce County Charter.

Donald S. Williams

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Revised Agenda for January 12 meeting

Pierce County


REVISED AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

January 12, 2006
7:00 p.m.

Environmental Services Building
9850 64th Street West
University Place, Washington


1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Approval of Minutes: January 5, 2006
6. Commission Budget Report
7. Rainier Media Center/C-RCC Proposal – Marc Pease
8. Staffing – Clerk(s), Parliamentarian
9. Rules and Process for Commission Term
a. Committee Structure and Assignments
b. Future Speakers
c. Meeting Schedule
10. Regular Meeting Time, Dates and Location
11. Old Business
12. Other Business
13. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)
14. Adjournment

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Suggestions for changes to the Pierce County Charter by Randy Boss

Here is a quick punch list of some of my issues to be discussed before the Charter Review Committee.

Article 1
Section 1.2(3) Are we actually consolidating emergency services? I'll want a report from these guys on this issue.

Article 2
Section 2.15 We need to have a discussion as to whether we should reduce the Council to five instead of seven. Snohomish County (a Home Rule County with about the same population) runs with 5 Council Districts and 5 Council Members. Seattle just reduced from 13(?) to 9(?) and Tim Farrell has nothing to do anyway because his district is entirely Downtown Tacoma. We can at least split his district between district seven and district 2.

Section 2.20(1)(f) - We need to fix this audit timing. It's too often and too costly to keep going on this frequency.

Section 2.25 I want to include the appointment of a "Grand Jury" in this section - or maybe in the Executive Section Article 3 Section 3.25. A grand jury (if possible during the Janovich era would have solved a lot of problems - of course we probably wouldn't have Home Rule either).

Section 2.30 Do we want to include a statement here that if the council meeting are televised they must be televised in their entirety and public comments must be included?

Section 2.35 The first sentence must apply to resolutions as well as ordinances. The second sentence should require all sub-committee meeting (as well as council meetings) to be open to the public. If they are not open to the public then there is no requirement to maintain "a verbatim public record". Also, maintenance of this verbatim public record should be defined better then a "reasonable period of time". We should institute the state "archive rules".

Section 2.45(6) Should we give the Executive the line item veto? Second - What's the "journal of council proceedings". No such document. Third - This section does not state a time frame in which an ordinance must be presented to the Executive.

Section 2.55 Add to the end of this section"...but must provide for public comment."

Section 2.6 Should we have the Pierce County Code available on the web and at the office of the Council?

Article 3
Section 3.10 states that executive departments may be established by the Charter or by ordinance. I don't want an ordinance to override the Charter.

Section 3.20 If the Executive is to be nominated and elected by the voters of the County then it will need to be a non-partisan office because, under our new primary rules, some of the County voters will be unable to "nominate".

Section 3.25(1)(b) Does this mean that the Executive is a (default) law enforcement officer with those powers?

Section 3.25(1)(f) This is the line item veto question again?

Section 3.25(1)(k) This should be every two years in the off election (add numbered) years.

Section 3.30 Should we talk about term limits for boards and commissions?

Section 3.5 Should we split up the office of Assessor-Treasurer into two separate departments? Should this position be an Executive appointment rather than elected? If elected it should be a non-partisan position because of the new primary election rules some of the electorate will not be allowed to "nominate".

Section 3.55 Should this position be an Executive appointment rather than elected? If elected it should be a non-partisan position because of the new primary election rules some of the electorate will not be allowed to "nominate".

Section 3.7 Should the Sheriff be elected? If elected it should be a non-partisan position because of the new primary election rules some of the electorate will not be allowed to "nominate".

Article 4
Section 4.10 Should these all be non-partisan offices because of the new primary election rules some of the electorate will not be allowed to "nominate".?

Section 4.20 Independents and Non-Partisan candidates shall be placed on which primary ballot? All primary ballots?

Section 4.7(3) "...shall be filed by a determining vote of the people...at the next November general election,

Section 4.9 The term limits question again...

Article 5
Section 5.30 Do we want to place this limitation on the initiative process? Why should the "people" (and how can they be qualified to) identify funding sources for a specific initiative requirement?

Section 5.40 Should this 120 days be changed to a date certain (like July 1st) to allow for petition gathering up and until that date which is 120 days prior to the next general election?

Section 5.40 If the Council decides to enact an ordinance to implement the exact initiative then the two (2) years indicated in Section 5.20 will still apply.

Section 5.60 Should use the words "emergency ordinance only"... Instead of the word "measure" it should reference the specific section or wording of the ordinance.

Section 5.80 There is really no recall available to the people. Do we want to specify a process?

I'll provide Part 2 to you later.....Feel free to share this with who ever you think might have some interest.

Randy Boss
(253) 858-5100

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Summary of January 5 meeting by Burt Talcott

Saturday, January 07, 2006
Dear CRC colleagues:

The “convening” session compels me to comment via e-mail – because it may not be possible during CRC meetings: time and “Robert’s Rules” constraints. E-mail has overrun the “public meetings act.” We should give “notice” that we are going to e-mail. Kelly Haughton has developed a “Blog” which is interesting, instructive and invites comments from CRCCs and the public. It might be useful for the Commission to develop its own official blog – for information and idea exchanges and to give a new, modern aspect to the “Public Meetings Act.”

Congratulations to Mrs. Enslow and Mr. Walton. Thought the “Convener’s” arrangements for the meeting (from scratch) were outstanding – no little task, requiring much energy, effort and foresight. The meeting guests were informative and instructive. I did not see a copy of the “Revised Agenda” until late during the meeting. I would have objected. Notice was totally inadequate, some newspapers had less than five days notice of the first agenda, less than 24 hours for the “Revised Agenda” and many media had none. We did more than “convene,” which may have been helpful in “moving along.” I had always favored ten days notice for public meetings, especially for a new Commission. There must be a law somewhere. The agendas were devised and published by the PC Council staff.

We should jealously guard our CRC independence and autonomy -- from the rest of the County government – in face of considerable importuning and insinuation of their authority.

I was pleased to hear, personally, a mutual pledge by Enslow and Walton to work cooperatively together – putting aside any personal or political divergent beliefs and backgrounds – for the benefit of Pierce County (PC) government and citizens. We all should take the same pledge.

I am pleased that we moved forward and elected a permanent Chair. We can’t afford to waste time. Anyone interested in an office on the CRC should have been prepared. The Voter Pamphlet and supporting comments for the candidates provided adequate personal information and background.

Whoever caused our convening session to meet at the sewer plant did us no favor – too remote and ostentatious for our tasks. Should be more central and closer to good transportation. A public library or the Annex would be better. Every recognized speaker should have a microphone – so that all CRCCs and the audience can hear. The “horse-shoe” seating arrangement should be reversed – so that no CRCC’s back is to the public. The Parliamentarian should be near the Chair – so instant communication is better. Name plates are more for the public than other CRCCs – larger. We need two podiums – for Chair and public. Details may seem petty, but they are important for efficiency and appearances. We experienced several parliamentary glitches. Perhaps one of our own should be commandeered to act as Parliamentarian while retaining the right to make motions, debate and vote – unless she/he is personally involved in the issue.

We should remember that we are not dealing with the Federal, State or City governments – each has its plate full. We have a different task and precious little time to accomplish it. The conduct of our meetings should be polite, civil, informal and focused. We must comply with all relevant laws, but not let ourselves get “bogged down” in technicalities or needless arguments designed to postpone, delay or filibuster – which will reflect badly on our work.

The Tacoma city scandals and bitter elections in some jurisdictions can be instructive for us but they are none of our business.

We must believe that PC is endowed with great undeveloped potential. Great scenery and environment (the Sound, Cascades, Olympics, trees and rivers), snow and water skiing within an hour, large permanent Navy, Army and Air Force bases nearby, large successful business nearby (Boeing, Intel, Microsoft, Russell, Paccar, etc.), the Port of Tacoma, many small businesses and tourist attractions, a nascent University of Washington, UPS, PLU, and mostly favorable living and working conditions. Unfortunately, traffic congestion, high taxes, excessive government spending and regulation impede a more robust business environment. Economic development is best left to the private sector. The County is primarily responsible for transportation, security, law and order and general livability. I urge us to focus on issues within our jurisdiction and that we not waste time and energy on extraneous issues and process debates.

The CRC is blessed with a nice diversity of experience and talent. We need only to convert our “splendid diversity” into a productive unity – to serve the best interests of the County government. Our credentials are insignificant. What we do in the next 5-1/2 months can be quite significant for our County. We need ideas, practical proposals, thorough civil discussions and then a strong consensus on any amendments or proposals which the voters or officials can willingly adopt. No use or sense to adopt something we can’t sell.

In our deliberations, we must consider history; but more importantly, we must anticipate the future. The next CRC won’t convene until 2015. The Charter intended, and we must believe, that the Charter should be periodically reviewed for modernization. Public officials like, and quickly adjust to, the status quo and bureaucracy. All vital institutions should improve their planning, organization, management, internal and external communications and public relations. Most political and governmental cliques and unions fail to modernize. They are most likely to gather and assume control to protect themselves rather than those they serve. Successful businesses modernize continuously. Wal-Mart does; GM didn’t. CRC needs to take the initiative for the County now. Otherwise, we will be burdened by a “pencil, carbon paper, Selective typewriter” perception and operation for another ten years. We need to be “collective Peter Druckers” for PC.

I believe we must address some arcane issues such as an effective Ethics Code and constitutional redistricting (which are foundational to government) as well as the common variety issues of electing the sheriff, reducing or increasing the number of legislative districts, odd-year elections, “non-partisan” elections, to change “fiscal year” to biennium, eliminate term limits, resign-to-run requirement, appoint Assessor-Treasurer, to limit county elective office to 12 years, to institute a “Grand Jury,” “ranked choice voting,” and others.

These are only thoughts and comments which can be wholly ignored, without any concern to me.

Selfless, sustained, sacrificial service will be required of all of us. Best wishes, Burt L. Talcott, District 7

Friday, January 06, 2006

Elected Sheriff Editorial

The Tacoma News Tribune writes in its editorial this morning that the Pierce County Charter Review Commission should talk about electing a Sheriff and then reject the idea.

We need to have someone present the pro side of this issue.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Ranked Choice Voting by Erne Lewis

Moderator's Note: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) discussed in other posts is a special case of Ranked Choice Voting. The example cited below is IRV. Lewis' post describes how IRV works. If the reader is wants more information, see The Center for Voting and Democracy.

While Lewis does not state this, he seems to be recommending this for consideration by the Pierce County Charter Review Commission.


Tired of voting for the better of two bad choices? There is a solution. Ranked Choice Voting is being used in lots of places, and voters love it.

Here is how it works:
When you vote you choose from among all the candidates your first choice, the person you really believe is best, even if he or she has little chance of winning.
You then choose the candidate who would be your second choice, and then your third choice, and so on, if you wish, including of course, that politically strong candidate that you don’t want, but would prefer over that other creep who might actually win if you don’t help defeat him.

When the votes are counted, assuming there were several candidates, if someone doesn’t win more than 50% of the first choice votes then the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and the votes are counted again.

If there isn’t a winner the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the process is repeated until only a few candidates—maybe only 2 or 3 or 4— remain, and someone has more than 50% of the total votes counted.
The winner will be first choice for many and second choice for others and perhaps third or fourth or even fifth choice for a lot of voters. But that winner will be someone who can truly say he has the most support and the most genuine support of all the candidates who ran.

The beauty of the system is that it allows people to vote for the person they really want as their first choice without fear that their vote will cause their worst choice to win. More important, they may truly expect that sometimes their underdog candidate—the person lots of people hoped could win, and wanted to win but couldn’t vote for because he or she just didn’t stand a chance—will win.

It’s a system that tears away the power politics and lets voters select the candidates that they really want.

It could even be used to replace the primary. We could go directly to the general elections without the cost and bother of the primary. If the political parties want to endorse one or more candidates that cost would not be borne by the taxpayers.

Erne Lewis, Gig Harbor

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Meetings on January 5 and 12

The Pierce County Charter Review Commission will meet on January 5, 2006, at 6 pm at the Pierce County Environmental Services Building, 9850 64th Street West, University Place, Washington. Questions may be directed to Susan Long, Administrator for Legal and Operations for the Pierce County Council, at 253-798-6068.

January 5 Agenda

1. Swearing in Ceremony

a) Administration of Oath - The Honorable Judge Stephanie Arend, Pierce County Superior Court

2. Reception

3. Orientation

a) Discussion of the History of the Charter and the Charter form of Government in Pierce County - Brian Sonntag, Washington State Auditor

b) Briefing on Open Meetings Act - Susan Long

c) Overview of Constitutional Limitations on Charter Counties - Bob Dick/Denise Greer, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys


The Pierce County Charter Review Commission will, also, meet on Thursday, January 12, 2006, at 7 pm at the Pierce County Environmental Services Building, 9850 64th Street West, University Place, Washington.

January 12 Agenda

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Welcome and Introductions
4. Adoption of Rules of Procedure
5. Election of Officers - Chair and Vice-Chair
6. Budget
7. Staffing
8. Open Discussion
9. Regular Meeting Time and Date
10. Cable Casting
11. Other Business
12. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)
13. Adjournment