Friday, March 31, 2006

Charter Amendment for Non-Partisan Offices

At the March 30, 2006 Pierce County Charter Review Commission meeting, the Commission gave a first round approval to a proposed amendment to make all county level officials non-partisan except the County Council and Executive. The proposal will have to receive a second approval in June to make the November ballot before the voters.

Under this proposal, the Auditor, the Assessor-Treasurer, the Prosecuting Attorney and the Sheriff, if elected, would be non-partisan positions.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Meeting Agenda for March 30, 2006



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

March 30, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Agenda - Additions or Corrections

5. Approval of Minutes
a. March 16, 2003 Regular Meeting
b. March 23, 2006 Regular Meeting

6. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)

7. Open Public Meetings Re: Emails – Legal Counsel

8. Vacant Position Process – Chair Enslow Filling

9. Proposal #3 – Nonpartisan County Officials - Amended
a. 2nd Reading
b. Discussion

10. Proposal #4 – GAO Functions
a. 1st Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

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

12. Adjournment

Monday, March 27, 2006

Notice of Vacancy

Pierce County Charter Review Commission

The Pierce County Charter Review Commission seeks candidates to fill a vacant position on the Commission, representing Council District 4. The Commission is responsible for reviewing the County Charter to determine its adequacy and suitability to the needs of the County and may propose amendments.

Candidates must have been residents of Pierce County for a period of at least five years, must be residents of Council District 4, must be registered voters, and be able to attend the regular weekly Thursday evening meetings and others that maybe required. The selection will be made by a majority vote of the Commission. The Commissioners serve without salary. The period of office ends June 30, 2006.

For application information, please contact Commission Clerk Julie King at P.O. Box 644, Enumclaw, WA 98022, (360) 802-3708 or email All applications must be submitted by April 6, 2006.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Voter Education on Ranked Choice Voting

San Francisco's Election Department has been running Ranked Choice Voting elections since 2004. They have created voter education presentation on their website which can help voters understand the system. For those whose computers can not use flash, they also have an Overview and a Frequently Asked Questions section of the site.

Last week, Professor Richard Anderson-Connolly of the University of Puget Sound provided all of the members of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission copies of the DVD produced by the San Francisco Elections Department on Ranked Choice Voting. The DVD is excellent and to be recommended. However, I could not figure out on the website how to order your own copy.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Referendum/Initiative Review and Ranked Choice Voting

At the March 23, 2006 meeting of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission, the Commission selected the issues of Referendum and Initiative review and Ranked Choice Voting as issues for discussion in the upcoming meetings.

Referendum and Initiative

Since the adoption of the Pierce County Charter, there have been very few referenda and initiatives qualify for the ballot at the county level. This has been in an environment where several initiatives qualify for the statewide ballot each year. This is an indication that our county level signature requirements are too high and discourage voter participation in the political process.

Ranked Choice Voting

The state legislature, the courts and the state political parties combined to do away with our blanket primary and move to a Montana-style primary. Through the statewide initiative process, voters were given a chance to express their opinion about the Montana-style primary and voiced a desire to change to something else, the Cajun primary (or the top 2 system). The courts, also, threw out the Cajun primary.

Many Pierce County citizens testified before the Commission about their desire to move away from the Montana-style primary to use Ranked Choice Voting to elect our county level officials. The Commission will be considering a proposal to do so over the next few weeks.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Vacancy Declared for Pierce County Charter Review Commission

At the March 23, 2006 meeting of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission, a vacancy was declared for the position of Commissioner, District #4, Position #3. Qualified voters from District #4 are invited to apply to the Clerk of the Commission, Julie King. Her phone number is (360) 802-3708. Her email address is

There will be advertisements taken out in other publications about the vacancy as well.

Meeting Agenda for March 23, 2006



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

March 23, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Budget Clarification

5. Comments from the Chair

6. Janis Martin Commissioner Position - RCW 42.12.010 and Charter Section 8.30
Discussion and Adoption of Charter Section 8.30 Procedures

7. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)

8. Preference Vote on Issues List

9. Proposal #2 – Term Limits
a. Reading of amended Proposal #2
b. Discussion

10. Proposal #3 – Nonpartisan County Officials
a. 1st Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

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

12. Adjournment

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Term Limits Opinion by Bob Dick

Bob Dick is one of the attorneys from the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney's office who has been assigned to assist the Charter Review Commission. The posting below is an email Dick sent to the Commission.

(Commission Chair) Bertie (Enslow) asked that we review cases regarding unconstitutionality of term limits and advise the Commission on limitations on the Charter Review Commission's discretion in recommending imposition of term limits in county charter provisions.

In the opinion of the Washington Supreme Court in Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wash. 2d 188, 949 P.2d 1366 (1998) the Court held that term limits may not be imposed upon constitutional officers of the state of Washington where qualifications for the office are set forth in the constitution, because those qualifications are presumed to be exclusive, absent constitutional amendment. As a result, in our opinion, a County charter may not impose term limits upon constitutional officers for whom qualifications are set by the constitution. This would include the constitutional offices of judges, prosecuting attorneys and superintendent of schools.

1991 Op. Atty Gen. Wash. No. 22 opined that county and city charters could impose term limitations upon purely county officers (excluding the prosecuting attorney, judges and superintendent of schools) in addition to qualifications found elsewhere in state law. This opinion preceded the Gerberding case, which drew a different conclusion for constitutional officers than the Supreme Court had followed for local municipal officers in State ex. rel. Griffiths v. Superior Court, 177 Wash. 619, 33 P.2d 94 (1934), where it held that statutory limitations imposed only minimum qualifications, and were not intended by the Legislature to be the exclusive list of qualifications a municipality might impose. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Gerberding fails to mention or overrule State ex. rel. Griffiths v. Superior Court though it draws a different conclusion upon similar facts, as pointed out by the dissent in Gerberding. Under the circumstances, it is our opinion that a County charter may impose term limits upon non-constitutional county officials, because State ex. rel. Griffiths v. Superior Court has not been overruled, even though the reasons for that opinion have been eroded by the more recent opinion in Gerberding.

Eminent Domain by William Mauer and Hugh Spitzer

William Mauer of the Institute for Justice and Hugh Spitzer from Foster Pepper PLLC in Seattle debated whether or not we need improvements in our eminent domain laws in the Tacoma News Tribune (3/19/06). The version in the hard copy of paper is easier to read than the electronic version due to poor editing skills in the electronic version of the TNT.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Meeting Agenda for March 16, 2006



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

March 16, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Approval of Minutes
March 2, 2006 Meeting – Revised
March 9, 2006 Meeting

5. Budget Report

6. Telephonic Teleconferencing Participation

7. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)

8. Proposal #2 – Term Limits
a. 2nd Reading of Proposal #2
b. Discussion

9. Proposal #3 – Nonpartisan County Officials
a. 1st Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

10. Preference Vote on Issues List

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

12. Adjournment

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Elected Sheriff Proposal Vote

At the March 9, 2006 Pierce County Charter Review Commission meeting, the Commissioners gave a preliminary nod to putting a proposal to elect Pierce County's Sheriff on the ballot. Aaron Corvin of the Tacoma News Tribune gives a nice summary of the activity in his article over the weekend.

Term Limits Comments by Burt Talcott

This is a portion of a public letter to the members of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission by Burt Talcott, one of the Commissioners. This is just the portion to do with term limits.

There is no valid reason or evidence to weaken or extend term limits. Term limits of eight years should apply to all elected officials and official Committees and Commissions of the county.

Public service is a noble calling. The best and most satisfying service is by private citizens who are willing to devote some time in service to their communities and other persons. There are many ways to serve. A career of public employment can be a beneficial and rewarding career just as a career in private employment – service for a salary, fees, benefits and pensions.

Service in policy making, elective positions is quite different. Service should be to change or improve government, for the public benefit not just personal employment. Energy, wisdom, initiative, creativity, integrity, collegiality and similar talents are needed as compared with specific skills, work ethic, dependability and similar abilities of employees and managers. The former is best achieved in the short term; the latter is more long term.

Elected officials soon learn to favor the status quo; they stagnate, become obsolescent – satisfied, even obsessed, with the generous pay, perks, privileges, power, pensions, extravagant lobbyist favors, public and media attention, arrogated status.

To better serve the public, new “blood,” energy, ideas, initiative, creativity, modernization, future planning is necessary. Turnover is beneficial. There is no one in public service whose job could not be better performed by hundreds, if not thousands, in their legislative or Executive districts.

If the President can “learn” his job in a few months, and he can, state, county and local officials can learn their jobs in much less time. Any department employee or staffer who says “I’ll be here longer than you, so stuff it” (or words to that effect) commits gross insubordination and should be fired or transferred on the spot.

Any elected official who believes he should ‘change the wall color or desks arrangements, and more” after every election should be subject to a better properties manager. Anyone who seeks public elective office and believes he should be assured of a healthy pension needs to be unelected fast. I want to see the candidate for public office who advertises that “I need twenty years to ensure my pension; or I won’t change the staff; or the office needs new color and office arrangement; so elect me” These are pitiful reasons for public service.

Speaker Foley and two long term US Senators were replaced and no one lost a beat – in fact government was improved. I can’t name a single public official whose loss would be missed after the funeral or the celebratory farewell. And there would be new energy, ideas and modernization which government at all levels needs desperately and urgently.

Our priority should be improved government – not improving the status of government officials. Eight years as a county official is adequate; if they can’t get their objective accomplished in that time, let someone else try. If they are looking for pensions, apply for county employment. If turnover complicates the old office arrangement or practices; the county should employ a more competent properties manager.

Lengthening term limits is extravagantly costly and extremely detrimental to county government. Don’t do it.

A Better Fix Than Term Limits

You’ll never catch the cat if you bark up the wrong tree. This even applies to term limits for elected office.

The flavor of the comments by the Charter Review Commissioners is that they favor more emphasis on “citizen” and less emphasis on “professional” elected officeholders in Pierce County. The proposed solution is to limit public officeholders to no more than 12 or 16 years of total elected office during their lifetime. This will NOT catch that particular cat.

As long as a high profile, good paying job exists with lots of benefits, there will be no end to the status seekers and money hungry running for public office. If a generous retirement system exists, then all of these “pros” will help each other between “elected” employments by appointment to various lucrative positions while they campaign for the next election.

The only solution to discourage professional officeholders and to promote “concerned citizen” officeholders would be to remove the monetary incentives. Eliminate the retirement system. Drastically reduce the pay. Change the Council from full time to half time.

You would expect that State Representatives (a higher level of government) would receive more pay than a County Councilman. Both are Legislators. Both perform the similar functions. Be ready for a surprise.

Your County Councilman receives a salary of $79,076. He receives another $3,240 for mileage for vehicle use. He also receives another $113,940 to spend on assistant(s) and other “office” expenses not otherwise provided by the overall Council administrative budget.

Your State Representative receives a salary of $35,254. He also receives a “per diem” of $90 per day for each day the Legislature is in session (60 days in even years, 105 days in odd years). He receives mileage at 44 ½ cents per mile only when the Legislature is not in session, usually to travel to/from his home District on official business. He has to provide his own office and assistant from a monthly budget of $650.

A bit of a pay discrepancy? You betcha. The money seekers go to Pierce County. The civic minded go to Olympia. Don’t get me wrong. I strongly believe that we currently have some outstanding Councilmen. I’m just pointing out that our current pay and benefit system provides a high motivation to keep the same individuals in County government for their entire working career.

If the Commissioners truly desire to promote citizen involvement instead of professional elected officials, then they should be barking up the pay and benefits tree, not the term limit tree.

Rick Sorrels 11 March 2006

Consequences of an Elected Sheriff

We must all live with the consequences of our actions, even if they are not foreseen. Changing to an elected Sheriff will have consequences too.

An elected Sheriff must, by definition, campaign for his election. The biggest vote count wins. Promises are made to obtain votes. If he doesn’t deliver on those promises, then the voters will remember and vote him out the next time around.

Where would a nominee for Sheriff need to focus his campaign (and promises) in order to win an election?

All of the citizens of Pierce County vote for Sheriff, despite the fact that the Sheriff’s Department only provides police services to unincorporated areas. The towns and cities provide their own police.

According to the 2000 Census, the population of Pierce County is 700,820, with 315,617 (45%) residing in the unincorporated areas, and the remaining 385,203 (55%) living in the towns and cities.

In order to win an election, the Sheriff MUST convince a very significant majority of Towners to vote for him. He can only do that at the expense of the rural citizens who rely upon the Sheriff as their sole law enforcement resource. Contrast this with the existing appointed Sheriff whose responsibility is to the rural citizens.

It is self-deceptive to believe that an elected Sheriff would be able to provide more services to the unincorporated areas of Pierce County.

What other consequences are not yet foreseen?

Rick Sorrels 11 March 2006

Procedures for Proposals

1. Commissioner (sponsor) or Chair of Ad-hoc Subcommittee will present a copy of the proposal to the Commission Chair and Clerk of the Commission. The Clerk will assign the proposal a number.

2. The proposal, in written form, shall show all the effected Charter(s) Section(s). Wording being deleted will be indicated by strike through, while added wording will be in bold type.

3. The Clerk will contact the Commission Chair and the person(s) submitting the proposal and discuss which meeting the individual will present the proposal to the Committee of the Whole.

4. The proposal, for those issues on the Commission’s top four issues, will be listed on the agenda of that meeting and notice of the proposal topic will be distributed to news media, Pierce County Officials and citizens receiving meeting notices. At the meeting there will be a first reading of the proposal and a first public hearing will be held for public comment on the proposal.

5. The Committee of the Whole may amend the proposal, set a second public hearing or refer to sub-committee.

6. The Clerk of the Commission will provide a copy to legal counsel for review and proposed changes.

7. The legal counsel will return the proposal to the Clerk with any comments and/or revisions.

8. When a public hearing is set the Clerk shall send copies of the proposal to news media, Pierce County Officials and citizens receiving meeting notices.

9. The Commission will determine in the semi-vote to include or remove the proposal from voter’s consideration.

10. As soon as Commission completes the semi-vote on an issue the Commission will open up any new issue(s) to be presented and a second preference vote will be taken again by the Committee of the Whole and highest will be added to the list of top four issues.

11. Final vote on the proposal will be taken at the last meeting.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Vote Counting Machines

During the public comment part of the March 2, 2006 Pierce County Charter Review Commission meeting, Professor Richard Anderson-Connolly of the University of Puget Sound testified Pierce County uses Sequoia Voting Systems machines as its primary vote counting machines. In particular, Pierce County uses the Optimal Scan Insight and Optical Scan 400C machines as part of the process.

Professor Anderson-Connelly passed out a copy of the Sequoia Voting Systems brochure about the machines to the members of the Commission. The brochure states

"As the mix of election methods becomes more varied and increasingly complex, such as new provisional laws and instant runoff voting (IRV), jurisdictions need to work with a vendor that understands their challenges and can implement multiple technologies held together by a single piece of software."

The brochure goes on to say the Optical Scan 400C can handle complex counting methods at speeds up to 400 ballots per minute.

Elected vs. Appointed Sheriff - My Opinion

by Rick Sorrels

If the issue of whether to elect or appoint the Sheriff were the only issue on the ballot, then I would not even waste the 39 cents to mail the ballot.

On February 22nd, 2006, The Peninsula Gateway solicited comment from its readers to gauge public opinion on this issue. To date, not a single response has come in, none in favor of election, none in favor of appointment, none opposed, nothing. The voters couldn’t care less.

I started out believing that it made no difference, whatsoever, whether the Sheriff was elected or appointed, but I searched for an answer anyway. I still believe that it makes no difference in the level of police services or the effectiveness or abilities of the Sheriff.

The only real differences I could find were the negatives. An election process would turn an otherwise dignified Sheriff into a street corner, hat-in-hand beggarman trying to raise campaign money, with all the associated risk of compromise and disrespect. The inevitable heated rhetoric of an election campaign will destroy any possibility of a loosing candidate from returning to work in that same Sheriff’s office. And it takes a lot longer to remove a “bad” Sheriff from an elected office.

Logic tells me to go with an appointed Sheriff, but the voters tend to vote with their emotions and not logic.

If this issue gets to the ballot, then I would expect it to be approved by a narrow margin. I expect 80% of the votes to be determined by a coin flip. Informed, knowledgeable voters: 2 %. People with a grudge against the police: 5%. Those approving something just because it’s on the ballot: 6%. Those denying it just because it’s on the ballot: 6%.

On second thought, the result would probably depend most upon the wording. If the ballot were to read “Shall the Sheriff be elected?”, or “Shall the Sheriff be appointed?”, would each probably prevail simply because it was worded in a positive manner. Major decisions should not be made due to such nuances.

In this case “let the voter decide” is NOT a call to democracy, it’s a call to apathy. The issue should not go to the voters unless the Commissioners determine that there is a definite need for a change. It’s an insult to the “informed” voters to force a revote on something that they already voted and decided in 1980.

That is my 2 cents worth, which will certainly not buy a cup of coffee in today’s economy.

Rick Sorrels 4 Mar 2006

Monday, March 06, 2006

Agenda for Meeting on March 9, 2006



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

March 9, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Approval of Minutes
February 23, 2006 Meeting
March 2, 2006 Meeting

5. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)

6. Proposal #1 – Elected Sheriff
a. Reading of the Proposal #1
b. Discussion

7. Public Hearing – Proposal #1 - Elected Sheriff

8. Proposal #2 – Term Limits
a. Reading of Proposal #2
b. Discussion

9. Public Hearing – Proposal #2 – Term Limits

10. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

11. Adjournment

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Autonomy for the Sheriff?

by Rick Sorrels

Autonomy is when you act independently with NO outside controls, i.e., a person who is self-controlled or self-governed.

Two examples of individuals obtaining high degrees of autonomy: First, a homeless bum who is a society dropout with no time pressures, no deadlines, and total freedom to wander as he wants when he wants. Second, a dictator responsible to NO law, only his own compulsion. Neither example would make a good Sheriff.

Our government actually tries to eliminate “police states”. Autonomy for police is anathema to our Constitution where “checks and balances” prevail to prevent autonomous acts. When somebody speaks of wanting a Sheriff that has more autonomy, they must surely mean a little less control over the performance of his job (presumably by his supervisor – the County Executive).

A Sheriff has the exact same degree of autonomy whether he is elected or appointed. The Sheriff has a boss, the County Executive, who monitors and directs the Sheriff. As discussed earlier, a Sheriff by his very nature and training tends to rise above the negative influences of politics, and will perform equally well whether elected or appointed. Personality conflicts and infighting might exist irrespective of election or appointment.

The only way to realize any significant difference in the degree of “autonomy” would be to remove the Sheriff from under the Executive, and have him report directly to the County Council. There is nothing to prevent such an arrangement, but a tremendous amount of planning would be necessary to overcome a multitude of potential problems inherent in such an unusual organization.

Such a massive restructure of County government has not been openly voiced. If this is the intent of some Commissioners, then it should be voiced early while time is available to adequately study the issue.

The Voters will never approve an amendment to elect the Sheriff if the only reason cited supporting the change is to give more autonomy (more power) to the Sheriff. Hitler and Saddam Hussein are the images that Voters picture when Police receive more power. Some other, additional compelling reason is needed.

I am still waiting to hear a compelling reason for the citizens to overturn what they have already voted into law in Pierce County, i.e., “the Sheriff shall be appointed”.

Rick Sorrels 26 Feb 06

GAO draft mission statement

Draft (updated 2/23/06, 08:40 hrs.)

Pierce County Accountability Office (proposed)

Mission Statement:

The Office is designed act independently and helps the County Council determine how well the executive branch agencies are doing their jobs. The Office will routinely answer such basic questions as whether the county programs are meeting their objectives or providing good service to the public. The Accountability Office main mission is to make sure the people of the county are getting good service.

The Office will also provide the Council the best information available so they might arrive at the best policy decisions and that all the information they are using is timely, accurate and balanced.

The Director of the office will be recruited and hired by the County Council. The Director then shall hire the staff of the agency. Removal from the job of Director once hired would require a supermajority of the County Council. Functions of the Audit Review Committee and performance audits will merge into the new office and be superseded by its’ mission. That merger may also include the Ethics Commission’s function.

The Accountability Office will have two organizational sections. One section will be dedicated to reviewing policies, programs and auditing agency operations. The audits performed will determine if county funds are being spent efficiently, effectively and appropriately.

The second section is dedicated to investigating allegations of illegal and improper activities within the county government that involve fraud, waste or abuse. Also, this section will operate a “hotline” for the public and county employees to report activities that involve fraud, waste, abuse and conflicts of interest within the county government.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Australian Prime Minister John Howard

This week Australian Prime Minister John Howard will mark ten years in office. Howard is a member of the Liberal Party and was elected in a partisan election using ranked choice voting. His Liberal Party replaced the Labor Party in office when they took control of the government in 1996.

Howard's term in office has been marked by an enormously stable and robust economic boom. The Sydney stock market's capitalization has swung skyward. Inflation is down to about 2.5%. Employment has increased. Today, more Australians own stock than belong to labor unions.

Ranked Choice Voting in Australia has helped allow that country to have a stable government with a multi-party system.

Proposed Elected Sheriff Amendment

To all - Additions to the Charter language are placed in bold and italics. Subtractions are shown in ((red)).

ARTICLE 3 - THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page C-7

This Article provides for the establishment of an Executive Branch of County government, consisting of an elected Executive, Assessor-Treasurer, Sheriff and Auditor, and the executive departments of Clerk of the Superior Court, and Coroner and Sheriff, and grants them administrative powers.

Section 3.70 - Sheriff
There is hereby created the executive department of Sheriff. The Sheriff shall be ((appointed by the Executive and confirmed by a majority of the Council.)) nominated and elected by the voters of the County.

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

Section 4.30 - Qualifications
Each county officer holding an elective office shall be, at the time of appointment or filing for election, and at all times while holding office, a citizen of the United States, and a resident and registered voter of Pierce County. In addition, all council members shall be residents and registered voters of their council districts for at least one year immediately prior to filing for the council position, and shall maintain residency in the council district during the term for which the council member was elected. No council district boundary change shall disqualify the council member from holding office during the remainder of the term of office. In addition, persons filing for the office of sheriff must have a minimum of 5-years law enforcement management experience.

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, with the exception of the office of Sheriff for which there is no limitation on the number of terms that may be served. 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.

Section 10.51 - Compensation, Sheriff
The first elected Sheriff shall serve full time and receive compensation at the rate no less than that paid the last appointed Sheriff on the effective date of the Charter Amendment.

Section 10.20 - Effective Date and Elections
The effective date of this Charter shall be May 1, 1981, except that special nominating primaries and a special election shall be held on February 3, 1981, and March 10, 1981, respectively, to elect four of the first Council members, the Executive, and the initial Assessor-Treasurer to be elected after adoption of this Charter. The nominating primaries and election shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, except the declarations of candidacy for the nominating primaries shall be filed December 15 to 19, 1980. A candidate may withdraw his nomination in accordance with general law and a vacancy on a party ticket may be filed in accordance with the provisions of general law. The first election for sheriff will be held in the normal nominating primary and general election of 2008.

Section 10.55 - Elective County Officers, Terms, Compensation
(1)The Clerk, Coroner, and Sheriff who hold office on the effective date of this Charter may choose to be continued in County employment in the equivalent department head position until the date when the term of office to which that official was elected would have expired, and be compensated for such time period at the rate of compensation specified by ordinance for the office to be held on the effective date of this Charter. Thereafter, that person shall be entitled to be appointed at the same initial rate of compensation to an administrative position designated by the Executive, subject to al the rules of the personnel system including rules concerning compulsory retirement, but excluding the rules concerning initial appointment.
(2)The Auditor who holds office on the effective date of this Charter may choose to serve
as official of the equivalent executive department, and shall receive compensation at a rate no less than the compensation received on the effective date of this Charter, until a successor is elected at the general election of 1982, has qualified, and commenced to serve.
(3)The Assessor and Treasurer who hold office on the effective date of this Charter may
choose to be continued in County employment in an administrative position designated by the Executive at an initial rate of compensation no les than that received on the effective date of this Charter until the date when the term of office to which such person was originally elected would have expired but for the adoption of this Charter.
(4)The Commissioners holding office at the effective date of this Charter shall receive
compensation at the rate paid to the Commissioner from the pre-charter Commissioner District Three (3) at the time of the adoption of this Charter, until their respective terms of office have expired.
(5) The Sheriff who holds office on the effective date of the 2006 Charter Amendment converting the office from appointed to elected may choose to serve as Sheriff, and shall receive compensation at a rate no less than the compensation received on the effective date of the Charter Amendment, until a successor is elected, has qualified and commenced to serve.