Meeting Agenda for June 22

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

June 22, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Vice Chair Walton

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Agenda - Additions or Corrections

5. Minutes
a. June 6, 2006 Special Meeting
b. June 8, 2006 Regular Meeting
c. June 13, 2006 Special Meeting

6. Reports

7. Proposal #4s (3) - Office of the County Ombudsman (OCO) – Submitted by Commissioners Merrival and Summers
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

8. Proposal #4s (2) - Citizen’s Oversight Board (COB) - Submitted by the Citizen’s Oversight Board
a. Reading
b. Discussion

9. Proposal #9s (2) – Balance of Power – Submitted by Commissioner Morell
a. Reading
b. Discussion

10.
Recommendations to the Pierce County Council
a. Recommendation #1- Aid and Assistance to Indigent Veterans – Commissioners Venuto & Hymans
b. Recommendation #2 – Procedures – Commissioner Walton
c. Recommendation #3 – Discrimination – Commissioner Walton

11. Public Comment - Confined to Identified Issues (3 minute time limit)

12. Commission Comment – (3 minute time limit)

13. Next Meeting Time and Place –Thursday, June 29, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

14. Adjournment

Recap of June 17 decisions on what goes on the ballot

On June 17, the Pierce County Charter Review Commission met and decided which of the proposals before it should appear on the ballot in November. Nine passed onto the ballot. Three were deferred to June 22 for further discussion and the rest were rejected.

The Tacoma News Tribune has done a nice job of recapping the events. It is recommended reading for those interested in the events of June 17.

Meeting Agenda for June 22

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

June 22, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Vice Chair Walton

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Agenda - Additions or Corrections

5. Minutes
June 6, 2006 Special Meeting
June 8, 2006 Regular Meeting
June 17, 2006 Special Meeting

6. Reports

7. Proposal #4s (2) - Citizen’s Oversight Board (COB)
- Submitted by the Citizen’s Oversight Board

Proposal #4s (3) - Office of the County Ombudsman (OCO)
– Submitted by Commissioners Merrival and Summers

a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

8. Recommendations to the Pierce County Council
a. Aid and Assistance to Indigent Veterans – Commissioner Venuto & Hymans
b. Conflict of Interest – Commissioner Walton

9. Ballot Title Review

10. Public Comment - Confined to Identified Issues (3 minute time limit)

11. Commission Comment – (3 minute time limit)

12. Next Meeting Time and Place –Thursday, June 29, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

13. Adjournment

IRV Cost Estimates by Prof. Anderson-Connolly

I have had the opportunity to review the Auditor’s estimate for the costs of implementing instant runoff voting in Pierce County. I discussed the figures with national experts in the field who were involved in the implementation of IRV in other localities. Below are my comments on the Auditor’s budget, informed by these discussions.

Development of Software $350,000.00

Comment: As the Auditor noted at her testimony to the CRC, there is free software for IRV elections readily available. In fact, this software was used in Burlington’s recent IRV election. Has the Auditor rejected this option? If so, what are the reasons? Is $350,000 the amount that our voting equipment vendor, Sequoia, asked for? Did the Auditor negotiate with Sequoia, with the knowledge of the free alternative, in order to keep the cost down?

Additional Ongoing Maintenance Charges (10% of development) $35,000.00

Comment: Who is making these charges? What goods or services will the county receive?

Additional Printing Costs $150,000.00

Comment: The ballot in November will be somewhat longer because more columns will be used for the rankings but, on the other hand, the ballot in August/September will be shorter because most county offices will not be on the primary. Previously the Auditor's Elections Department reported that the September 2004 election cost $81,577 for printing for the entire election. Where is the reduction in expenses for eliminating the primary for the affected races? Why would the printing costs almost triple as a result of doing some offices via IRV?

Return Postage Costs $150,000.00

Comment: As above, there are both savings and costs. For example, in the September 2004 primary, the Auditor reported spending a total of $34,596 for postage. Why would postage expenses be over five times the September 2004 costs? The Auditor should provide the primary and general election components. The primary expenses should represent a cost savings due to lighter mailings. The general election could be higher, but not five times.

Additional Full Time Staff (addition of two FTEs) $120,000.00
Additional Extra Hire Staff $45,000.00

Comments: San Francisco did not hire any extra staff despite (1) having a larger population, (2) having a large non-English speaking population, and (3) being the first city/county to run an IRV election. Why does Pierce County need this staff given our smaller population and the availability of a system that has worked elsewhere? During her testimony the Auditor assured the CRC that her office could run an IRV election if the people voted for it. No mention was made at that time that additional staff would be required.

Development of Rules and Procedures $100,000.00

Comment: The rules are approximately 2 pages long and can be largely borrowed from SF, Alameda County, and Burlington. What specifically will require $100,000?

Voter Education Campaign/Staff Training $2,000,000.00

Comment: In 2004, when Pierce County changed from the blanket primary to our current pick-a-party system, the Auditor spent $97,843 on voter education and outreach on the change. Why should voter education be 20 times larger for IRV than for the pick-a-primary change? A description of IRV in the voter guide, ads in the News Tribune, and an additional hour of training of poll workers will suffice. Furthermore we have successful voter outreach materials from the other IRV cities/counties that we can adopt instead of developing our own. It is expected that the news media also will provide free publicity in the form of news coverage and public service announcements. The Pierce County web site could include information about instant runoff voting, including an already designed flash animation about how voters rank their ballots, for a minimal cost. In addition, candidates themselves will have a vested interest in telling voters to rank their candidates; this has certainly been true in other places that have used instant runoff voting.

Based on the Burlington experience this year, voter education should cost no more than 25 cents per resident, or around $200,000 for Pierce County. The Auditor’s estimate is inflated by a factor of 10. How is this $2 million figure arrived at?

General Comments:

Although all of the errors seem to be cost overestimates or ignored savings, I am hopeful that these were all honest mistakes instead of an attempt to influence a legislative decision, something we can agree would be clearly inappropriate for the Auditor’s office.

Perhaps the Auditor had insufficient time to research the San Francisco and Burlington IRV implementations. To produce a more accurate follow-up, the Auditor might wish to contact the following individuals:

· Caleb Kleppner (caleb@electionsolutions.com)

Consultant for implementation of instant runoff voting in San Francisco and Burlington, Vermont.

· Steven Hill (hill@newamerica.net)

Director, Political Reform Program, New America Foundation, led the effort to implement instant runoff voting in San Francisco

· Terry Bouricius (terry@electionsolutions.com)

Consultant for implementation of instant runoff voting in Burlington, Vermont

I am certain that we all hope that the Charter Review Commissioners and the voters in November will have accurate information upon which to make their decisions. A successful democracy requires a properly informed electorate.

Sincerely,

Prof. Richard Anderson-Connolly

Non-Partisan Proposal Cost Estimates

The Pierce County Auditor has provided a cost estimate of $800,000 for changing the election system for the Assessor-Treasurer, Auditor and Prosecuting Attorney to be non-partisan. The Sheriff would also be non-partisan if both the non-partisan proposal passed and the elect-the-Sheriff proposal passed as well.

The basis of the Auditor's estimate is the assumption that the election of these officials would be shifted to odd-numbered years. Nowhere in the proposal does the proposal recommend the shift of the election of these officials to odd-numbered years.

There are numerous non-partisan judicial elections held in even-numbered years. As a Commissioner voting in favor of this proposal, I was certainly under the impression that election cycle for these offices would be unchanged. If the election of these offices continue to be held in even-numbered years, all of the costs which the Auditor has asserted go to zero.

Meeting Agenda for June 15

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

June 15, 2006
6:30 p.m.



1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Agenda - Additions or Corrections

5. Reports
Monthly Budget Report

6. Legal Review of Draft Amendments
a. Proposal #2S – Term Limits
b. Proposal #4S (2) – Citizen’s Oversight Board
c. Proposal #7b – Appointments
d. Proposal #9a – Balance of Power
e. Proposal #9b (1) – Balance of Power
f. Proposal #16S – Eminent Domain
g. Proposal #17 (1) – Conflict of Interest (if approved on 6/13/06)
h. Proposal #20 – Resign to Run

7. Public Comment - Confined to Identified Issues (3 minute time limit)

8. Commission Comment – (3 minute time limit)

9. Next Meeting Time and Place – (Special) Saturday, June 17, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

10. Adjournment

Pierce County Auditor Cost Estimates

The Pierce County Auditor has put forth the cost estimates below for the elections department for implementing four of the proposals before the Charter Review Commission. These cost estimates have not been vetted and will be subject to comment and review. Some of the cost estimates seem to show a lack of understanding on the part of the Auditor of the proposals. This blog will post further comments on her estimates in later postings.

Initiative and Referendum Proposals

Additional extra hire staff to validate additional petitions $25,000

Non-Partisan Proposal

Primary Election Odd Year Costs incurred by County $300,000
General Election Odd Year Costs incurred by County $500,000

Total $800,000

Citizens Oversight Board (COB)

Costs for additional ballot for initial board to be elected in 2007 $150,000
Primary Election Odd Year Costs incurred by County $300,000
General Election Odd Year Costs incurred by County $500,000

Total $950,000

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

Development of Software $350,000
Additional Ongoing Maintenance Charges $35,000
Additional Printing Costs $150,000
Return Postage Costs $150,000
Additional Full Time Staff (addition of two FTEs) $120,000
Additional Extra Hire Staff $45,000
Development of Rules and Procedures $100,000
Voter Education Campaign/Staff Training $2,000,000


Total $2,950,000

Meeting Schedule for week of June 12

The Pierce County Charter Review Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of June 12, 2006.

1) June 13 - 6:30 - 9:30 pm - Pierce County Transit Center

2) June 15 - 6:30 - 9:30 pm - Pierce County Transit Center

3) June 17 - 8 am - Noon - Pierce County Transit Center

If events go as scheduled, the final up and down votes on the proposals will occur on June 17.

Motion to Amend Procedures for Proposals

Bertie Enslow, Chair of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission; Bob Dick, Legal Counsel to the Commission; Denise Greer, Legal Counsel to the Commission and others met to draft up a set of proposed procedures for the last few weeks of the Commission. At the June 13, 2006 meeting of the Pierce County Charter Review Commision, Commissioner Enslow will give her report on this proposal and then ask for a motion to adopt these procedures.

MOTION

I move to amend the Procedure for Proposals, last amended by the Charter Review Commission on 3/2/06, to read as follows:
Amend paragraph 11 as follows:

11. Final vote on the proposal will be taken at the last meeting. After legal review and comments by counsel to the CRC on proposals adopted by semi-vote, the CRC may consider by a majority vote (a) motions to amend a proposal to correct any problems highlighted by legal review, and (b) motions to combine semi-vote proposals which affect the same charter section(s) and to reconcile the combined proposals.

Add the following paragraphs 12-14.

12. After all motions to amend under paragraph 11 have been resolved for all proposals, motions to finally adopt each proposal to be placed upon the ballot shall be by roll call vote and shall require a majority of those present.

13. After the final vote on proposals to be placed upon the ballot, the CRC may adopt suggested ballot titles for each finally adopted proposal.

14. The members who voted for a final proposal to be placed on the ballot may select a committee of not more than three members, which shall include the commissioner who originally presented the proposal if he/she so elects, which shall be responsible for submitting a “Statement For” the proposal to the County Auditor, provided they notify the County Auditor of such selection by June 30, 2006.

The members who voted against the final proposal may select a committee of not more than three members which shall be responsible for submitting the “Statement Against” the proposal, provided they notify the County Auditor of such selection by June 30, 2006.

All statements for or against a proposal must be submitted to the County Auditor not later than forty five days before the publication of the voters’ pamphlet for the 2006 general election. Such statements shall comply with the Auditor’s administrative rules regarding submission of such materials for the voters’ pamphlet.

Procedures for Proposals Adopted 3/2/06

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.

Meeting Agenda for June 13 Special Meeting

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

June 13, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Agenda - Additions or Corrections

5. Reports
a. Chair

6. Motion for Adoption of Clarification of Final Vote Procedure

7 Proposal #17 (1) – Submitted by Commissioner Walton
a. Reading
b. Discussion

8. Legal Review of Draft Amendments
a. Proposals #1 – Election of Sheriff
b. Proposal #3S (1) – Partisan Non-Partisan
c. Proposal #4a (2) – GAO Function
d. Proposal #5S (1) – Instant Run Off Voting
e. Proposal #6a – Initiative
f. Proposal #6b – Referendum
g. Proposal #7S – Budget Process
h. Proposal #9S (1) – Balance of Power

9. Public Comment - Confined to Identified Issues (3 minute time limit)

10. Commission Comment – (3 minute time limit)

11. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, June 15, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

12. Adjournment

Agenda for June 8, 2006 meeting

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

June 8, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Agenda - Additions or Corrections

5. Minutes
June 1, 2006 Regular Meeting

6. Reports

7. Proposal #16S – Eminent Domain
a. Reading
b. Expert Testimony
1. Institute for Justice
William Maurer, Executive Director or Michael Bindas, Staff Attorney

2. Pierce County Public Works and Utilities
Brian Ziegler, Director or John Salmon, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

c. Discussion


8. Proposal #5S (1) – Instant Run Off Voting
a. Reading
b. Discussion

9. Proposal #14S – Personnel Board
a. Reading
b. Discussion

10. Public Comment - Confined to Identified Issues (3 minute time limit)

11. Commission Comment – (3 minute time limit)

12. Next Meeting Time and Place – (Special) Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

13. Adjournment

Meeting Agenda for June 6 Special Meeting

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

Sumner City Hall
Council Chambers
1104 Maple Street
Sumner, Washington 98390

June 6, 2006
6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Commissioner Enslow

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Agenda - Additions or Corrections

5. Proposal #17 – Conflict of Interest – Submitted by Commissioner Walton
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

6. Proposal #18 – Appointments by Executive and Confirmation – Submitted by Commissioner Walton
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

7. Proposal #19 – Veteran’s Assistance – Submitted by Commissioner Venuto
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

8. Proposal #20 – Resign to Run – Submitted by Commissioner Talcott
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

9. Public Comment - Confined to Identified Issues (3 minute time limit)

10. Commission Comment – (3 minute time limit)

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

12. Adjournment