Amendment to make some offices non-partisan

Commissioner Merrival has proposed to eliminate the words in ((red)) and between double parenthese as well as to add the words in bold and italics. The impact is to make all county level offices except County Council, Executive and Prosecuting Attorney non-partisan.


ARTICLE 4 - ELECTIONS

Section 4.10 - Election Procedures
The nominating primaries and elections of the Council members, Executive, ((Assessor-Treasurer,)) and Prosecuting Attorney, shall be conducted in accordance with general law governing the election of partisan county officers. All other nominating primaries and elections for county officers shall be conducted in accordance with general law governing the election of non-partisan county officers.

Section 4.70 - Vacancies
(1) An elective office shall become vacant when one of the following occurs:
(a) death;
(b) total permanent incapacity as determined by a panel of three physicians;
(c) resignation;
(d) recall of the officer;
(e) a council members absence from three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the
Council, without being excused by the Council;
(f) absence from the county for thirty (30) days without being excused by the Council;
or
(g) failure to maintain residence within the district from which elected.

(2)The Council shall fill a vacancy in a partisan office from a list of three people submitted by the County central committee of the party represented by the official in office immediately prior to the declaration of vacancy. In the event that this official was elected as an independent, the vacancy shall be filed by the Council with an individual who certifies to be of the same affiliation. The Council shall fill a vacancy in a non-partisan office from a list of three people submitted by the Executive.

(3)Vacancies in an elective position shall be filed at the next November general election, unless the vacancy occurs after the last day for filing declarations of candidacy, in which case the vacancy shall be filed at the next succeeding November general election. The person elected shall take office upon certification of the results of the election, and shall serve the unexpired term of the vacated office. Until a successor has been elected and certified, a majority of the Council shall fill the vacancy by appointment. All persons appointed to fill vacancies shall meet the qualifications set in Section 4.30.

Proposed Term Limit Charter Amendment

Commissioner Merrival has proposed to eliminate the words in ((red)) and between double parentheses from the Charter:

ARTICLE 4 - ELECTIONS

Section 4.90 - Limitation on Terms of Office
No person shall be allowed to serve in County elective office for more than two ((consecutive))
four year terms in the same position, as a council member, Executive, or separately elected
department head.

((Service as an elected County official prior to the commencement of this Charter
shall not be counted as part of any official's two consecutive terms.)) Establishment of residency in an alternate district will not circumvent this restriction.

Ranked Choice Voting Better than Montana Primary

by Erne Lewis

When the political parties sued to get rid of the blanket primary in Washington State, their purpose was to allow the party members of each party to choose the candidate who would represent their political philosophies—an obvious freedom of association claim. The court agreed but the solution given to us by the legislature and the Governor certainly doesn’t meet that standard and it is arguably far worse. In place of the blanket primary we now have the complicated and expensive Montana primary system.

Voters in Pierce County receive a single consolidated ballot that includes all races and measures up for consideration. However, for partisan votes to count, a voter must affiliate with a political party by checking a box at the top of the ballot after which they must only vote for candidates who also affiliate with that political party. (Those candidates may actually not be members of that party). Crossing over and voting for candidates of another political party will result in the loss of all partisan votes. As with the blanket primary, party members have lost control of who represents their party. The cynical use of the Montana primary to replace the blanket primary system confirms for many voters—myself included—that they vote in elections controlled by politicians to keep themselves in office.

Across the United States as well as in Pierce County, voters usually explain after an election that they voted for the lesser of two evils; they believe that if they vote for the person they really want, their vote won’t count. So they vote for the least-bad candidate, or they don’t vote at all.

Ranked Choice Voting does away with that problem while increasing political participation. But it has another very important advantage. It removes the need and cost of the primary.

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 their second choice, and third choice, and so on including the least-bad candidate that they would have felt obligated to chose under the present system.

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, this time including the second choice votes of the voters who voted for the eliminated candidate. That process is repeated until a candidate has won more than 50% of the votes.

The winner will be first choice for many and second choice for others and perhaps third or even fourth 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.

I believe RCV will soon be used in most elections to avoid the cost and poor results produced by the present primary system. Ranked Choice Voting would offer Pierce County voters an opportunity that other Washington voters do not presently have. We should take advantage of this opportunity.

THE LAST ELECTED SHERIFF - George Janovich

by Rick Sorrels

The name Janovich invariably comes up whenever the issue of an elected sheriff is discussed. Some background is provided for a better understanding:

After graduating from high school, Janovich joined the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office where he served for 30 years. He and his wife also operated Peninsula Ambulance Service for 20 years until they sold it in 1976.

After being elected Sheriff, things started to go bad. A Criminal Complaint was filed against Janovich on Nov 28, 1978 citing specific events occurring in 1977 and 1978. He was Indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on Dec 8, 1978. A Recall Petition was filed on Dec 18, 1978. Janovich contested the Recall with a lawsuit filed on Jan 3, 1979, Janovich v. Herron. In March of 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that the Recall would continue, but, in order to protect Janovich’s Constitutional Rights, the Recall election could not be held until at least 45 days after the Federal trial in San Francisco had concluded.

Janovich and 5 others were convicted of RICO violations (racketeering) in November of 1979. Six other defendants had pled guilty without trial. Janovich was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and served 6 years before he was released. After a successful Recall, Janovich collected a retirement pension from the Sheriff’s Department, both while in and out of prison until he died in 2005 at age 77 with a ruptured appendix after a long history of heart attacks and heart surgery.

The racketeering for which Janovich and the others were convicted focused on protection schemes involving bail bonding and the “night-life” industry (gambling and prostitution) around Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base.

I have not yet found the exact date of the Recall election, but it is quite possible that it was the exact same election that adopted the County Charter in November of 1980. If this was indeed the case, then there is no doubt that Janovich would have been an object of intense discussion among the Freeholders, while Janovich was a convicted felon held in Federal prison while still a sitting Sheriff for Pierce County.

During 1980, the Freeholders would have analyzed the elected v. appointed Sheriff issue every way imaginable. We should not assume that their decision to have an appointed Sheriff was impulsive, it was a far too important a decision for the time. The decision to have an appointed Sheriff was not an isolated one, they completely re-organized the entire County government, doing away with the three-Commissioner system, and creating the existing system of County Council with Executive.

We owe it to the original Freeholders to at least scrutinize their minutes and records to discern their thoughts and rationale before proposing an amendment that would revoke the provisions already approved by the Voters.

Rick Sorrels 24 Feb 2006

PS The Commission discussed the election of the Pierce County Sheriff at its last meeting. See the Tacoma News Tribune article for more coverage.

Proposed Amendments by Burt Talcott

Dear CRC Colleagues: When recognized, I would like to propose the following amendments for consideration of the CRC. Thanks, BLT

Proposed Charter Amendments by Burt L. Talcott: February 23, 2006

Section 4.40 -- District Boundaries is amended to read: “The boundaries of each District shall be drawn to produce districts which are as nearly equal in population, contiguous and compact as practicable.”

Section 4.60 -- Districting Plan is amended to add the following language: “except that any citizen of Pierce County may file suit in Superior Court, within fifteen days of the adoption of the plan, to contest the plan or any portion thereof. If successful, the contestant shall be reimbursed by the County for all fees and costs incurred in such contest.”

Section 4.90 Add the following: “No person shall be allowed to be a candidate for an elective office in Pierce County while holding another elective office in Pierce County.” (To prevent serial cherry picking. The “resign to run” concept – much needed in Pierce County.)

Section 4.100 -- Limitation on Campaign Contributions (New) “No candidate for any public office in Pierce County may accept any contribution for any purpose from any person who cannot vote for the candidate. All contributions to a candidate, whether in cash, promised or “in kind,” shall be immediately, at least no later than 24 hours, reported by including the full name, voting address, employer’s name, address and occupation of the contributor; the full amount of the contribution and the sum of all prior contributions during the present election cycle, to the candidate’s opponents, two political Parties and the legal newspaper within the electoral district of the candidate. No contribution of any kind to any candidate may be made or promised within 100 hours of the time of the first counting of ballots in the election. Any violation of this section shall be subject to a fine of ten times the amount of the illegal contribution or one year in jail, or both, for each violation.”

(Any perceived infringement upon a citizen’s exercise of free expression or “speech” is deemed necessary to protect the integrity of elections, a more essential function of government than unlimited “free speech.” There is no limit on the amount or kind of “speech.” Why should an “outsider” who will not be affected by the election be permitted to affect an election? Why should anyone be entitled to influence two or more elections in different districts? Persons are prohibited from voting for candidates in different districts – which may be wrongly perceived by some as an infringement on one’s “right of full expression.” Contributions are much like votes – designed to affect an election. We shouldn’t allow a person to contribute to candidates in two different districts any more than one should be allowed to vote for candidates in two different districts. Neither voters nor contributors should be allowed to corrupt the electoral process.”)

Section 8.20 -- Election and Period of Office Delete “every ten (10) years” and replace with “every six (6) years.” (Time is “telescoping.” The Internet, cell phones, blackberrys, Ipods, air travel, personnel practices, management systems, architecture change in a few months that once required decades. The county can’t wait a decade for another Charter Review Commission to review the Charter when changes occur in months. The extra cost would be well spent in developing urgently needed changes sooner. Public officials seldom make effective or beneficial changes in the public interest without the prodding of a grassroots citizens Commission. Obsolescence and stagnation are the habits of government – and needs more frequent review and change.)

Section 6.10 Presentation and Adoption of the Budget (and all others section and sub-sections where the words “fiscal year” is stated) Amend the Charter to replace the words “fiscal year” with “biennium.” This amendment would require such changes in Sections 6.20, 6.25, 6.30, 6.40, 6.50, 6.70, 6.75, and in some instances, “annual” would be changed to “bi-annual.” (This change would save valuable time of budget and department officials and permit taxpayers and officials to plan better.)

I propose that the CRC recommend that the Executive and Council appropriate up to $1 million for the purpose of employing a firm of expert consultants to study and recommend changes and improvements in the planning, organization, management, operation, personnel and communication (internal and external) systems of and the ethical conduct of County government. (The initial expense would be quickly recouped and rewarded with valuable long term improvements and cost reductions.)

GAO Subcommittee meeting on March 1, 2006

PIERCE COUNTY


NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
AD-HOC GAO SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

March 1, 2006

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special meeting of the Ad-hoc GAO (Government Accountability Office) Subcommittee of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission will be held on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, beginning at 4:30 p.m., for discussion of the Compliance Review Office (GAO) issue for the purpose of reporting findings and recommendations to the Pierce County Charter Review Commission at a future regular meeting.

The meeting will be held at the University Place Pierce County Library, 3605 Bridgeport Way West, Tacoma, WA 98466.

Any questions regarding this meeting may be directed to Julie A. King, Clerk for the Pierce County Charter Review Commission, at (360) 802-3708 or e-mail jkingpccrc@yahoo.com.



Julie A. King

Term Limits by Erne Lewis

We have a two-term limit on most Pierce County political offices, but no limit on the number of offices a politician may hold in sequence. And the result has been that some people have served two terms in one office and then used that office as a stepping stone to the next office.

The problem with the present system is that it insures we are governed by a professional political class, people who may have entered office hoping to serve the community but having held office for several years, they have come to believe the lives of Pierce County citizens require their management.
We need instead people who are willing to serve the community for a short time and then return to live under the laws and regulations they helped to pass.
I propose an eight year total limit on political office in Pierce County to protect our elected officials, and us, from the disease of incumbency, an arrogant hubris that eventually infects all professional politicians, causing them to believe they are better than the people they govern.

Election of Sheriff by Rick Sorrels

VOTERS TO DETERMINE IF SHERIFF
IS TO BE ELECTED OR APPOINTED?

By Rick Sorrels

A clear majority of the Charter Review Commissioners want the voters to determine in the November election whether the Pierce County Sheriff will continue to be appointed by the County Council or elected by the citizens. This and other important issues were discussed at Thursday’s meeting of the Charter Review Commission.

The exact wording of a proposed amendment to the County Charter may be drafted as early as next Thursday, Feb 23rd, after hearing testimony from any citizen who wishes to speak (5 minute limit), and after debate by the Commissioners. The Commission will be inviting the Thurston County Sheriff, the King County Sheriff, the Pierce County Sheriff, and representatives from the Washington State Council of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to attend, offer comment, and be questioned on the issue.

The 21 Commissioners were elected to their position in last November’s election. They were sworn in during January and serve for a maximum of six months. By July they must finalize the wording of any amendments to the County Charter that will appear on the November ballot.

The Commissioners have a great deal of evidence to gather, testimony to hear, and work to do. They meet every Thursday at 6:30 pm at the Pierce Transit building located at 3720 96th St SW in Lakewood.

The Commissioners have identified 35 important issues that they want to investigate, but they recognize that only a fraction of those will ever make it to the ballot. Citizen’s input will have a major influence on which issues survive until November.

The four issues determined to be most important and to be investigated first are: (1) whether the Sheriff will be elected or appointed, (2) term limits for county officials, (3) creation of a compliance review office, and (4) whether election of county officials will be partisan or non-partisan. Study of these four issues should be concluded within the next month, with investigation into other issues to follow.

The County Charter is comparable to the Federal or State Constitution. It establishes the basic fundamental structure, power, and limits of our county government. It is reviewed and amended only once every 10 years.

Amendments to the Charter are controlled and initiated by the citizens, not the politicians. The review and amendment process is a rare opportunity for common citizens to voice opinion and to actually influence changes to our local government.

Golf Course Referendum testimony by Ken Paulson

I filed a referendum on the Chambers Bay Golf Course ordinance (2005-50s) in Sept. 2005 within the time limit set by the County Charter. It is filed with the Auditor. According to the County Charter, Section 5.70, ". the filing officer shall confer with the petitioner to review the proposal as to form and style within 5 days excluding weekends and holidays." The Charter goes on to say, " . the filing officer shall give the referendum proposal a number ..then transmit a copy of the proposal to the Prosecuting Attorney, who within 10 days after receipt thereof shall formulate a concise statement, posed as a positive question, not to exceed twenty words, which shall express and give a true and impartial statement of the measure being referred. Such a statement will be the ballot title."

After filing the referendum, I called the Auditor's office and asked for the number and was told a prosecutor was sending me a letter. I then called the prosecutor and was told "this and that" of why this referendum won't happen. I asked for WAC and RCW. A copy of the letter I received from the prosecutor's office was given to the Charter Review Committee on 2/16/06.

As a point of interest, no WAC or RCW were listed in the letter as to why this referendum proposal would not happen. I honestly don't understand. If I had the opportunity to ask some questions and get real answers, the following would be some of the questions I would ask:

1. To me it's a no-brainer. The Auditor has to give the referendum proposal a "number".

a. What excuse does the Auditor have for this not happening?
b. Can anybody in government tell the Auditor not give the referendum proposal a "number"?
c. The Auditor had 5 days to assign a number. Is the Auditor office so busy that the function of picking out a number be that time consuming that it could not happen?

2. Concerning the Prosecutor: a. Section 5.60 of the Charter says "A referendum may be ordered on any ordinance, or section thereof, passed by the Council, except such ordinances as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or support of the County government and its existing public institutions." If the County Council saw that ordinance falling within one of these, it would have had an emergency clause in the ordinance.

Only in initiatives does the prosecutor have to "review the legal aspects of the proposal". The Charter does not say that for a referendum. If a prosecutor should come to the next Charter meeting and explains why this did not happen, I have no idea what substance they could say. By the way, I was shopping this last Saturday and ran into a Pierce County Councilman and mentioned this issue again to him. His comment was that was a "raw deal" about the referendum not being able to happen.

Can anybody in government tell the Prosecutor to not give the referendum proposal a ballot title"? This has been just so far out of line that I don't know if someone could come up with enough double talk in front of the Charter Committee to make this issue go away. The County Council has the police to enforce county ordinances. The public has no one to enforce the County Charter.

Oh yes, there is a way . a citizen could spend big bucks of their own personal money and sue the county who has a boat full of lawyers to defend it and all of our tax dollars to support their agenda.

Ken Paulson

February 23, 2006 meeting agenda

Pierce County


REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

Pierce Transit
Rainier Room
3720 96th Street S.W.
Lakewood, Washington

February 23, 2006
6:30 p.m.


1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Approval of Minutes
a. February 16, 2006 Regular Meeting
b. February 13, 2006 Ad-hoc Subcommittee Meeting

5. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)

6. Elected vs. Appointed Sheriff Expert Testimony
a. King County Sheriff Sue Rahr
b. Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor
c. Pierce County Sheriff’s Guild - Representative

7. Establish Procedure for Proposals

8. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, March 2, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

9. Adjournment

GAO Subcommittee meeting on February 22, 2006

PIERCE COUNTY


NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
AD-HOC GOA SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

FEBRUARY 22, 2006

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special meeting of the Ad-hoc GOA Subcommittee of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission will be held on Wednesday, February 22, 2006, beginning at 4:30 p.m., for discussion of the Compliance Review Office (GAO) issue for the purpose of reporting findings and recommendations to the Pierce County Charter Review Commission at a regular meeting.

The meeting will be held at the University Place Pierce County Library, 3605 Bridgeport Way West, Tacoma, WA 98466.

Any questions regarding this meeting may be directed to Julie A. King, Clerk for the Pierce County Charter Review Commission, at (360) 802-3708 or e-mail jkingpccrc@yahoo.com.



Julie A. King


Date: February 21, 2006

Meeting Notice for February 16, 2006 of Pierce County Charter Review Commission

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

Pierce Transit
Rainier Room
3720 96th Street S.W.
Lakewood, Washington 98499

February 16, 2006
6:30 p.m.


1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Approval of Minutes
February 9, 2006

5. Public Comment (5 minute time limit)

6. Prioritizing Identified Issues
A. Ad-hoc Subcommittee Report – Vice Chair Walton

7. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington 98499

8. Adjournment

Issues Categorized by Article of the Charter

AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
IDENTIFIED ISSUES
BY ARTICLES



ARTICLE 1 – POWER OF THE COUNTY

A. Coordination of County Wide Emergency Services with State & Federal (#17)
B. Taking/Property Eminent Domain (#25)

ARTICLE 2 – THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

A. Balance of Power (9.c)

1. Independent Salary Commission Creation (#18)
2. Line Item Veto (#9.a)
3. Golf Course/Hospital Boondoggle & How to Avoid in Future (#23)

B. Size and Make Up of County Council (#8)

ARTICLE 3 – THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

A. Executive Department

1. Health Department/Planning Department (#13)
2. Assessor and/or Treasurer Separated (#2)
3. Appointed or Elected (#3)

a. Coroner
b. Planning Director
c. Sheriff

4. Term Limits – Appointed Boards (1.a)

B. Balance of Power (9.b)

1. Appointments to Boards and Commissions Process (#24)
2. Confirmation Process for Department Heads (#19)

C. Functions

1. Biannual budget process (9.b)
2. Budget and Finance Policy Guide Lines (#29)

ARTICLE 4 – ELECTIONS

A. Term Limits – Elected (#1)
B. Partisan or Non-Partisan Elected Officials (#4)
C. Move Pierce County Elections to Odd Years (#5)
D. Rank Choice Voting (#6)
E. Resign to Run (#7)
F. Campaign Contribution Limits (#12)
G. Redistricting (#22)
H. Voter Security/Fraud and Standardization (#28)


ARTICLE 5 – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

A. Referendum and Initiative -% (#11)

ARTICLE 9 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

A. Accountability

1. Open Government Concerns (#10)

a. Access to all County records
b. County Council activities/Notices
c. Proposed Council resolutions and ordinances
d. Public webcast of all Council proceedings
e. County record achieved

2. Transparency of County Functions (#15)
3. Compliance Review Office – GAO (#14)
4. Conflict of Interest Enhancement (#20)

B. Veteran’s Policies (#16)

C. Enhancement of Freedom of Religion and Sexual Orientation (21)

D. Should County be Self Insured? (27)


ARTICLE 10 – TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

A. Review Article (#26)

Dave Franta's comments before the Commission

Dave Franta appeared before the Pierce County Charter Review Commission on February 9, 2006. His comments on property appear on www.crc-property.blogspot.com. Below are notes on the remainder of his comments.

1) The mission of county government is never described in the Charter.

2) There are no limits to the size and function of the county government in the Charter.

3) Any general tax increase proposed by the county should require a majority of the registered voters to pass.

4) Any county tax increase submitted to the voters should be announced six months prior to the general election where it will be decided.

5) The charter should prevent any county agency from changing an administrative code having the force of law without such change being submitted to and accepted by the county council.

Meeting Notice for February 13, 2006 Special Ad-Hoc Subcommittee

NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2006

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special meeting of the Ad-hoc Subcommittee of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission will be held on Monday, February 13, 2006, beginning at 11:00 am, for the purpose of categorizing issues identified at the February 9, 2006 regular meeting.

The meeting will be held at the Pierce County Building, 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Council Offices, Room 1046, Tacoma, WA 98402.

Any questions regarding this meeting may be directed to Julie A. King, Clerk for the Pierce County Charter Review Commission, at (360) 802-3708 or e-mail jkingpccrc@yahoo.com.

Outcome of Issues Brainstorming during February 9 meeting

At the February 9, 2006 meeting of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission, the Commission spent part of the meeting brainstorming which issues we should review given the public comment which we have received. Below is the list of issues to be considered. The list with 29 items is long and the only consensus thus far is that the Commission will not put 29 amendments before the voters. The next few weeks will be spent doing research on these issues, debating the issues, writing proposed amendments and determining which ones to put before the voters. Of course, on this blog, the public is welcome to comment on what it thinks the Commission should do.



2-9-06 BRAINSTORMING SESSION
IDENTIFIED ISSUES


#1 Term Limits (remove or extend or modify)
a. Elected + Appointed Boards

#2 Assessor & or Treasurer separated

#3 Appointed or Elected
a. Coroner
b. Planning Director
c. Sheriff

#4 Partisan or Non-Partisan Elected Officials (Or a Mix)

#5 Move Pierce County Elections to Odd Years

#6 Ranked Choice Voting

#7 Resign to Run

#8 Size and Make up of County Council

#9 Executive
a. Line item veto
b. Biannual budget process
c. Balance of power

#10 Open Government Concerns
a. Access to all County records
b. County Council activities/Notices
c. Proposed Council resolutions and ordinances
d. Public webcast of all Council proceedings
e. County records achieved

#11 Referendum and Initiative (%)

#12 Campaign Contribution Limits

#13 Health Department/Planning Department

#14 Compliance Review Office (GAO)

#15 Transparency of County Functions

#16 Veteran’s Policies (9.35)

#17 Coordination of County Wide Emergency Services with State and Federal

#18 Independent Salary Commission Creation

#19 Confirmation Process for Department Heads

#20 Conflict of Interest Enhancement

#21 Enhancement of Freedom of Religion and Sexual Orientation (9.65)

#22 Redistricting

#23 Golf Course/Hospital Boondoggle and How to Avoid in Future

#24 Appointments to Boards and Commissions Process

#25 Taking/Property Eminent Domain

#26 Review Article 10

#27 Should County be Self Insured?

#28 Voter Security/Fraud and Standardization

#29 Budget and Finance Policy Guide Lines

San Francisco Ranked Choice Voting

San Francisco moved to using Ranked Choice Voting in 2004 and has held two elections using the system. This San Francisco Examiner article reviews the experience in San Francisco. The article documents cost savings, higher voter turnout and a voter survey of attitudes about the new ballots.

It is interesting to note the voter survey in the article about shifting from one voting system to Ranked Choice Voting. There was no survey of Washington voters about the move from the blanket primary to the Montana primary.

Hot List of Charter Issues by Randy Boss

Charter Review Members:

With the Thursday "brainstorming" session quickly approaching I thought I'd take one last stab at creating a "hot" list of issue I believe the Charter Review Commission should address. Commissioner Haughton and others have merged several issues that are inter-related into a package that would be reviewed, researched and then reported back to the committee of the whole and I think that is a good format for some of the issues - others I believe can be addressed and voted directly from the committee of the whole. Here we go.......

(1) Should the Sheriff be elected or appointed?

This is one of those question that simply needs to be voted on by the committee of the whole. I think everyone will agree that this issue needs to go to the voters for their decision and the committee of the whole should simply pass this out immediately. This issue should be moved on to legal counsel for a draft of the wording for committee of the whole approval to then move on to the prosecuting attorney for final ballot language and then back to the committee of the whole for final approval and placed on the list of issue to be presented to the voters in November.

Each of the following committees should release issues from their committees as they get flushed out through and then presented to the committee of the whole for approval and movement to legal for a draft of the statement that would then return to the committee of the whole for approval before going to the prosecuting attorney's office for final ballot title creation. This "flow" of issues to the prosecutors office will eliminate a flood at the last minute and will allow the committee of the whole to review each issue as it rises to the top of the "to do" list.

(2) Election Issues Committee - The following issues should be assigned to a committee for their review, research and report issuance back to the committee of the whole. If approved by the committee of the whole, each individual issue would move through the chain to finally get added to the list which will ultimately be presented to the voters in November. Those issues are:

(a) Should we remove or extend term limits from all elected officials?
(b) Should we remove or extend term limits from all Boards and Commissions?
(c) Should we separate the Treasurer from the Assessor and make them both independent elected positions?
(d) Should we change some of the appointed positions to elected positions? (Coroner?) (Planning Director?)
(e) Should we change any of the elected position to appointed positions? If so which?
(f) Should we make all elected officials non-partisan positions because of the new primary format? (See Note #1)
(g) Should we move all County elections to the odd years?
(h) Should we institute "Instant Runoff Voting" for all County elections?
(i) Should a new "resign to run" policy be implemented and applied to all elected County officials?

(3) Executive Committee - There are a couple of issues that fall under the purview of the Executive that need to be addressed:

(a) Should the Executive be granted the "line item veto"?
(b) Should the County institute a "bi-annual" budget process like the State?

(4) Legislative Committee - There are a few issue that focus on the County Council that need to be addressed:

(a) Should the number of County Council seats be changed to 5 or 9 or left at 7?
(b) Should there be better access to County Government by:
(1) enhancing access to all County Records through the internet
(2) posting County Council activities in there entirety on the internet
(3) making available all County Council resolutions and ordinances prior to passage on the internet
(4) requiring public broadcast (TVW style) of all County Council and sub-committee meeting in their entirety
(5) All County records should be archived as required by state law eliminating the random destruction of records.

(5) Government Accountability Committee - Should a new "Civil Grand Jury" be appointed annually to perform the function of County government oversight to include:

(a) Incorporate the "Audit Review Committee" functions to complete administrative oversight of selected departments.
(b) Incorporate the "Ethics Committee" to accept, review and resolve complaints against public officials.
(c) Incorporate the "Ombudsman's position" to accept, review and resolve all complaints from the public re: government.
(d) Give the Civil Grand Jury the authority to call for a Criminal Grand Jury when their investigation warrants.

(6) Special Issues Committee - This is where all other issues would be addressed, including:

(a) Do we want to eliminate Section 5.3 which restricts the initiative process?
(b) The "recall process" in the Charter is very weak. With non-partisan and maybe more elected officials do we need an enhancement?
(c) Should violations of the "code of ethics" (section 9.40) be grounds for "recall" under section 5.80?

I think this sheet addresses all issues that have been heard by the Charter Review Commission to date but if other issues need to be added or new issues appear during the following months they would be assigned to a subcommittee by the committee of the whole for evaluation and recommendation.

(Note #1 - Section 3.20 requires the Executive be "nominated" by the voters and Section 2.15 states that the Council members shall be nominated and elected by the voters of each district. Neither of these can occur under the current primary system because not all voters will be allowed to "nominate" all elected officials based on the current primary process. This issues needs to be addressed by the Charter Review Committee in order to bring the Charter in conformance with current state law.)

If you have any questions I'd be happy to address each and any issue - just give me a call.

Randy Boss
(253) 858-5100

Identification of Issues for Charter Review Commission

At the February 9, 2006 meeting of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission, the Commission will brainstorm which issues merit either further research or the drafting of a proposed amendment. Each Commissioner will participate by naming those issues which they believe merit this further attention.

I have purposely kept my list short for now, since these issues are obviously important and we are continuing to take public comment. I remain open to the idea of adding other issues brought up by other Commissioners as well as the public. Also, there may be more issues which come to our attention later in the process. Below is my list for Thursday.

1. Electoral Reform/Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting

Over the last couple of years, the blanket primary has been ruled illegal and the state legislature has debated between a Cajun primary and the Montana primary. During our public comment sessions, we have had several people (including a representative of the League of Women Voters) come forward and advocate the use of Ranked Choice Voting. We have had no one advocate either the Cajun primary or the Montana primary.

As a result, this issue merits further attention. The Commission should assign a Committee to research the practical implications of moving the election of county officials to Ranked Choice Voting. We would need to study what changes would need to be made and what costs/savings are possible with such a methodology. This Committee would then report back on its research to the whole Commission.

2. Election of the Sheriff and other positions

We have heard much comment both in the media and via public comment about the election of the Sheriff. In addition, we have heard interest in the possibility of electing additional officials.

This issue seems like one where the Commission should discuss this as a Committee of the whole. If there is an agreement to move forward, we can then assign a Committee to draft a proposed amendment.

3. Performance Audit, Ethics and Grand Jury

Making sure we have the proper checks and balances in our government is a necessary function of the Charter. We have heard testimony that the Ethics Committee has too little power, the Performance Audits are required too frequently and the whistleblowers lack a forum to air their concerns. A Committee should be assigned to review all of these functions and propose an approach to dealing with all of these issues in a unified way.

Takings by Rick Sorrels

Rick Sorrels of Gig Harbor has written extensively on the subjects of Eminent Domain and Takings. His writings will be posted on a separate blog dedicated to comments about land use and property rights. Others are invited to post as well.

There are four postings written by Sorrels on the new site. I recommend that you start with the posting at the bottom of the blog and work your way up through time.

Kelly Haughton

Meeting Notice for February 9, 2006

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

THURSDAY, FEBRURY 9, 2006
6:30 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a regular meeting of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission will be held on Thursday, February 9, 2006, for the purpose of brainstorming Pierce County Charter issues for placement on the November Ballot and for public comment.

The meeting will be held at Pierce Transit, Rainier Room, 3720 96th St. S.W., Lakewood, Washington.

Any questions regarding this meeting may be directed to Julie A. King, Clerk for the Pierce County Charter Review Commission, at (360) 802-3708 or e-mail jkingpccrc@yahoo.com.






__________________________________
Julie A. King

Date: February 3, 2006
Time: 11:52 a.m.

Home Rule Counties Elected Officials

The five home rule counties in Washington are Clallum, King, Pierce, Snohomish and Whatcom counties. Each handles the electing of county officials differently.

Clallum: Three elected partisan Commissioners by district, elected non-partisan Assessor, Auditor, Sheriff, Treasurer, elected partisan Prosecuting Attorney, no Executive. Elections in odd and even-numbered years.

King: Nine elected partisan Council members by district, elected partisan Executive, Prosecuting Attorney, elected non-partisan Sheriff. Elections in odd-numbered years.

Pierce: Seven elected partisan Council members by district, elected partisan Executive, Auditor, Prosecuting Attorney, and Assessor-Treasurer. Elections in even-numbered years.

Snohomish: Five elected partisan Council members by district, elected partisan Executive, Prosecuting Attorney, elected non-partisan Assessor, Auditor, Clerk, Sheriff, Treasurer. Elections in odd-numbered years.

Whatcom: Seven elected non-partisan Council members, two Council members live in each of three districts plus one at-large, elected non-partisan Assessor, Auditor, Executive, Sheriff, Treasurer, elected partisan Prosecuting Attorney. Elections in odd-numbered years.

How many County Council members? by Rick Sorrell

TO: Charter Review Commission

RE: Number of Members on County Council

There is merit to both increasing and decreasing the number of Councilmen. A better argument is to leave the number unchanged.

Reducing the number would definitely reduce the cost of the County Council. Increasing the number would definitely increase the voice and influence of particular voting blocks. But there has been NO accounting presented for any expected cost or savings for such proposals, nor any compelling evidence that the current system is inefficient or fails in some way.

A new Councilman operates inefficiently for a couple of years while he “learns the ropes” and develops a network and rapport with his constituents. Any change in number or redistricting throws a wrench of inefficiency into the system. Additionally, a percentage of office holders will always prove to be less then expected or ineffective, with other members having to pick up the slack.

A change in number will prove costly, both the cost of redistricting and the loss of efficiency. A compelling reason should exist to make a change. If compelling reason is presented, then it should be considered. The County will suffer if change is made on no more than a whim. As the saying goes, “If it isn’t broke, then don’t try to fix it”. There are more important issues.

Rick Sorrels, 884-4650

Agenda for Regular Meeting on February 2, 2006

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

Pierce Transit
3720 96th Street S.W.
Lakewood, Washington

February 2, 2006
6:30 p.m.


1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Approval of Minutes
Special January 26, 2006 Meeting
Special January 28, 2006 Retreat Meeting

5. Public Comment (5 minute time limit)

6. VOTING PROCEDURE – SIMPLE or SUPER MAJORITY

7. Time Lines – Chair Enslow & Vice Chair Walton

8. Commissioner Comments

9. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, February 9, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

10. Adjournment

Various Issues by Rick Sorrels

TO: Charter Review Commission

RE: Issues to Consider

A County Charter is similar to our Federal Constitution, our State Constitution, and the Articles of Incorporation for a major corporation. There are two types of provisions contained in a Charter: (1) a grant of authority to act (including the organization and structure through which it acts), and (2) limits or restrictions on its power to act.

When County government starts to become inefficient or when acts taken are contrary to existing law or the desires of the citizens, then a revision of the County Charter may be needed.

Specific proposals have been presented regarding the number of council members, which officials should be elected and which appointed, etc. Structural changes should not be made unless a clear case of abuse of power (inherent in the structure created by the Charter), or evidence of gross inefficiency can be evidenced. The personality and ineffectiveness of individual office holders, which can be corrected at the next election, should not be confused with a need to change the County Charter.

Limits on powers is a much greater concern for most citizens. Issues which the Charter Review Commission should consider include:

1. THE “TAKINGS ISSUE”. Federal and State Constitutions, federal and state statutes, court decisions, etc, all guarantee Due Process Rights and protections against the governmental taking of real and personal property. County policies and adopted ordinances violate these provisions and protections, leaving the County vulnerable to billions of dollars in damage claims. A clear statement of rights and limitations needs to be included in the County Charter.

2. FOCUS OF BUILDING DEPT. The primary function of the Bldg Dept is to insure that an accurate inventory of improvements exists for taxing purposes. This has morphed into a detailed system of reviews and approvals of all aspects of land use. This turns the County into a guarantor of construction and improvements, making the County vulnerable for damage claims whenever anything goes wrong. Do we still believe in individual rights, freedoms, and responsibilities, or is the County now in control of the smallest detail of our life, and is also monetarily responsible for a citizen’s poor judgment? For example, tax money is being wasted purchasing homes in flood plains to avoid liability that the County should not have to bare. Another example, County issues permit (grants approval) for house built on steep hillside, which is later destroyed in landslide, and homeowner sues County. A clear statement of allowable degree of government intrusion and liability needs to be considered for Charter amendment. (Some overlap with Issue 1).

3. DECRIMINALIZE CODE VIOLATIONS. County Council routinely adopts ordinances with provisions for criminal prosecution for every ordinance adopted. If you build a temporary wheel chair ramp for use while your wife’s injuries heal, without first obtaining a building permit, then the County can file criminal charges. If a squatter pitches a tent on your property and sleeps overnight without your knowledge, the property owner can now face criminal charges. Cutting a tree branch can now result in criminal charges. A Charter amendment to decriminalize the vast majority (if not all) code violations should be considered.

4. AVAILABILITY OF COUNTY CODE. Charter section 2.60 requires a current copy of ALL County Codes be maintained in ALL public libraries. The County has failed to maintain current copies (or in a lot of cases, ANY copies) at these required locations. Most citizens and attorneys try to do their research at the County Law Library which does not receive or maintain a current copy of the County Code. The Law Library is not associated with the County Library System, so arguably is not included under the requirements of this section. Section 2.60 should be amended to require that current copies of all County Codes be maintained at the County Law Library.

5. AVAILABILITY OF COUNTY REGULATIONS. Some County subagencies (like the Health Dept) adopt and maintain their own regulations which are enforced against our citizens, but are not available for public review. Section 2.60 should be amended to require that current copies of all County regulations be maintained at the same locations as the County Code. (Some overlap with Issue 4).

6. FILING OFFICER. Proposed amendments to County Charter must be submitted to and processed by somebody called a “Filing Officer” (Charter section 8.50). There is no mention of how this person is appointed or how he fits into the organization of the County. A citizen filing a Charter Initiative Petition under section 8.65 has no way to tell how to comply with those mandatory filing requirements. There should be no impediment to initiative actions. If a certain office (like the Auditor) has been appointed to perform this temporary act once each decade, then an amendment naming that particular office should be considered.

Additional information will be provided on each of the above selected for discussion in committee.

Rick Sorrels, 884-4650