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