Pierce County Charter Review

Voters' Rights Win in Pierce County

2007-11-06T22:43:00.000-08:00

Early results in Pierce County show the voters sorting their way through some confusing proposed charter amendments to pass some worthy amendments and reject those which would have postponed a better voting system.

Charter Amendment 4 would have postponed implementation of IRV (or Ranked Choice Voting) until 2010 rather than the current law which requires implementation in 2008. No reason was given for delay. The Auditor has a plan in place to implement. The early results show this proposal being defeated 33-66%. We will have IRV in 2008.

Charter Amendment 5 would have required the Auditor to allow voters to make three rankings for each race in 2008 and not allowed for more rankings as technology improved. This restricts the Auditor's office from improving with technology. The early results show this proposal being defeated 39-61%.

Charter Amendment 6 will allow the Auditor's office to use current technology in 2008 and implement enhancements as they occur. This means voters will be allowed to make three rankings in each race in 2008. The early results show this proposal passing 55-45%. This will strengthen the Pierce County Charter and our elections.

Charter Amendment 7 levels the playing field for independents and third party candidates. With the passage of Amendment 7, these candidates will have the same ballot access as major party candidates. The early results show this good amendment passing 66-33%. More voter choice is on the way. Indeed, Mike Lonergan, Tacoma City Councilmember, has announced he is planning to run for Pierce County Executive next year as an independent.

The Pierce County Charter is now a model for election reform in the state. Congratulations to the voters of Pierce County.

Seattle P-I wishes Pierce County good luck

2006-11-16T20:58:00.000-08:00

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer does not like the pick-a-party primary, but it does like Pierce County Charter Amendment 3. The paper wishes Pierce County good luck with its experiment in improving democracy for the voters.

The Pierce County Charter Review Commission put Amendment 3 on the ballot in Pierce County. Ron Sims, King County Executive, is in the process of appointing a new King County Charter Review Commission. Let's hope the new commission puts an Amendment 3 style reform on the ballot in King County.

Seven out of nine Charter Amendments are on their way to passage

2006-11-13T22:27:00.000-08:00

As of this writing, seven out of the nine amendments put on the ballot by the Pierce County Charter Review Commission are on their way to winning! The only two amendments (Amendments 4 and 5) to go down to defeat were those lowering the number of signatures for referendum and initiative. In terms of passing Charter Amendments, this Charter Review Commission is the most successful of any Commission in the history of the Charter.

Pierce County will now be electing its Sheriff (Amendment 1). Paul Pastor, the current appointed Sheriff, has already said he will be running for Sheriff in 2008. A more formal announcement will occur later.

Pierce County will be using Instant Runoff Voting (Amendment 3) to elect its county level officials (Executive, Assessor-Treasurer, Auditor, Sheriff and County Council members) starting in 2008. Auditor Pat McCarthy has vowed to make the IRV implementation in Pierce County the best implementation in the country. Let's all pitch in and help her make good on her commitment. It is great for Pierce County to take such a leadership position in improving democracy.

Pierce County will not be able to use eminent domain to condemn private property to give it to another private party. Amendment 9 was written to prevent such takings by the county government.

Vote Yes on 3, 4, 5 and 9

2006-11-07T07:44:00.000-08:00

Please vote Yes on Charter Amendments 3 (Instant Runoff Voting), 4 (Initiative), 5 (Referendum) and 9 (Eminent Domain). These amendments all strengthen the power of the voters and citizens in general. Thank you for considering the Charter Amendments.

Amendment 3 is first step

2006-10-07T08:13:00.000-07:00

Pierce County Charter Amendment 3 will replace the pick-a-party primary with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for county level officials except the Prosecuting Attorney and judges. For those of us who want to see IRV replace the pick-a-party primary completely in the state of Washington, Amendment 3 should be seen as a first step towards that goal.

Why does Amendment 3 only affect county level officials?

The Pierce County Charter Review Commission is only able to propose changes to the Pierce County Charter which is the constitution for the county. Further, the changes which can be proposed are governed by Article XI, Section 4 of the Washington State Constitution. This part of the state constitution allows the county is choose which officials to elect and how to elect them with the exception of the Prosecuting Attorney and the judges. The Charter Review Commission went as far as the law would allow it to go.

So if Amendment 3 is the first step, what would be the subsequent steps?

1) The Charter Review Commission recommended to the County Council that in the event that Amendment 3 passes they should request the state legislature to allow the County to elect its Prosecuting Attorney and judges using IRV. Obviously, this follow-up would make sense to do. The state legislature has passed similar legislation in the past, so we would have a good shot at accomplishing this.

2) In addition, to better leverage the IRV software we should ask the state legislature to allow local jurisdictions in Pierce County to use IRV and eliminate this expense. For example, the Metropolitan Park District would have saved $65,000 in 2005 through using IRV to elect its Commissioners. Once again, the state legislature has passed similar legislation in the past, so the prospects are good.

3) Amendment 3 has attracted comment in the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as well as on the Dave Ross Show on KIRO. Why? People around the state are interested in the model Amendment 3 provides for ridding us of the pick-a-party primary statewide. Some have suggested that, after Amendment 3 passes, we should do a statewide initiative in 2007 or 2008 to pass Amendment 3 style reforms statewide. Some state legislators have volunteered to introduce legislation which would replace the pick-a-party primary system with IRV statewide. Which approach to the statewide problem would work remains to be seen; however, there will be people considering how to make this happen.

All of the above would be made easier and more likely with the passage of Amendment 3. While Amendment 3 is only a partial step towards replacing the pick-a-party primary with IRV statewide, it is an important step which will enable all of the rest of the steps.

Charter Amendments 1-5 Proposed Ballot Titles

2006-09-19T18:04:00.000-07:00

The Auditor's Office has released the proposed ballot titles for the nine Charter Amendments on the ballot in November. The titles for Amendments 1-5 are listed below.

1) The Pierce County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the Pierce County Charter establishing an elected Pierce County Sheriff beginning in 2008, and providing for transition from the current appointed sheriff to a sheriff elected by the voters.

Shall this Charter Amendment be approved?

2) The Pierce County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the Pierce County Charter concerning the County's performance audit requirements. This amendment would require ongoing performance audits in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, annual reports by the Council on the highlights, free copies of the reports available to the public, and evening public hearings regarding the audits.

Shall this Charter Amendment be approved?

3) The Pierce County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the Pierce County Charter implementing instant runoff voting for County elected officials except judges and Prosecuting Attorney. Voters will rank candidates in order of preference at the general election. No primary election will be held. Candidates for partisan office must obtain 25 voter signatures to qualify for the ballot. Major political parties may determine which candidate may use the party label.

Shall this Charter Amendment be approved?

4) The Pierce County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the Pierce County Charter reducing the number of signatures required to validate an initiative. Currently, to validate an initiative, a petitioner must collect valid signatures equal in number to not less than 10% of the number of votes cast in the County in the last executive election. This proposed amendment decreases the number of signatures required to validate to 8% of the votes cast.

Shall this Charter Amendment be approved?

5) The Pierce County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the Pierce County Charter reducing the number of signatures required to qualify a referendum for the ballot. Currently, a referendum must collect valid signatures equal in number to not less than 8% of the number of votes cast in the County in the last Executive election. The proposed amendment would decrease the number of signatures to 4% of the votes cast.

Shall this Charter Amendment be approved?

Party driven primary is fundamentally flawed

2006-09-15T13:31:00.000-07:00

By John Earl

This article appeared in the Peninsula Gateway on September 13, 2006. The article is not available in the online version of the Gateway.

I received my primary election ballot in the mail the other day, and after taking a moment to curse the absurd "pick-a-party" system that was imposed on us by the major political parties, I scanned the ballot for the hotly contested races that will shape the face of government over the next few years. Boy was I disappointed.

In the Republican primary there are three races that are actually contested. In the Democratic primary there is one - sort of. You're probably aware that the "pick-a-party" system allows you to choose and nominate candidates of only one party. If you choose the Republican ballot, out of a total of eight races you can only make a choice for the U.S. Senate, State Senate and the 1st Legislative House race. On the Democratic ballot the only choice that party is allowing you to make is in the U.S. Senate race between Maria Cantwell and a gaggle of fringe candidates headlined by "Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson" and "Mike the Mover."

The two major parties have worked very hard to enforce party discipline. The result is that our September primaries resemble a coronation more than an election. In the process, voters are given less and less choice, and have subsequently grown more and more dissatisfied with the government that we eventually receive. If you get the feeling your voice is being minimized or marginalized, that's because it is.

I understand why the Supreme Court ruled that Washington's old blanket primary system was invalid. The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly, and the two parties successfully argued that they should have the freedom to control who can participate in the selection of the party's standard bearer for a given office. I agree that a state should not be able to compel the political parties to associate with, and have their private nominating infiltrated by, people who don't embrace their political agendas.

However, if you accept the parties' argument that they are private entities and should be shielded from the general public, then why are primary elections funded with public money? As an independent voter, I protest being forced to provide my tax dollars to fund a "private" primary election for political parties whose agendas I don't support. In essence, the "pick-a-party" system compels me to either associate with political parties I disagree with, or else forfeit my right to vote in an electoral process I pay for. Through their lawsuit, the political parties have imposed on independent voters exactly the same injustice that they argued against in the Supreme Court.

But the battle is not over. There are at least two things voters in Gig Harbor can do to resist the effort of the political parties to dominate the primary election. First, unless you have an uncontrollable desire to cast an inconsequential protest vote against Maria Cantwell, fill in the Republican ballot in the primary race. Even if you consider yourself a Democrat, there are no real choices on that primary ballot, so you might as well exercise what little choice is available on the Republican side of the ticket. That way, you'll have some influence in 26th District legislative races, and you'll confound experts who hope to use the primary results to handicap the general election.

Second, support Pierce County Charter Amendment 3 in the November General election. For Pierce County elected offices, Charter Amendment 3 replaces the ridiculous "pick-a-party" system with an Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) system that allows voters to designate their preferences among all of the available candidates. With IRV, you get to rank candidates on the ballot in order of your preference. The candidate that receives the least amount of first place votes is eliminated, and all of their votes are transferred to the individual voter's second choice. The process repeats until one candidate has over 50 percent of the votes and a winner is declared.

The current party primary system gives undue influence to party operatives who back candidates that support their special agendas. These candidates are installed on the ballot before most voters even realize there is a race, and by the time election season arrives the electorate sometimes find they must choose between the lesser of two evils. IRV will put overly divisive and partisan politicians at a disadvantage and give the edge to consensus building candidates who can appeal to a broad range of voters. The frenzied followers of a party hack won't be able to compete with the broad middle occupied by reasonable and rational candidates who rank higher on everyone's list of preferences.

Pierce County voters can show the rest of the state a path to kicking out the "pick-a-party" system by approving Charter Amendment 3 in November. Party leaders may not like it, but the rest of the state will be far better off.

2006 Pick-a-Party Primary - Unnecessary

2006-09-05T21:43:00.000-07:00

In the state of Washington, according to the Secretary of State's website, there are 121 seats in the Legislature up for election this year, and there are primary races in only 18 of them. Thirty-seven incumbents are assured of a free ride in both the primary and general elections. So why are we paying for a primary election for two private parties?

Obviously, the taxpayers of Washington are paying for an election of dubious value. Is there a better way? Yes.

In Pierce County, Charter Amendment #3 would replace the pick-a-party primary with Instant Runoff Voting for certain county level offices. This would mean folding the primary into the general election, thus saving the cost of the primary. All candidates would go to the general election and voters would be allowed to choose any candidate, any party.

IRV would be as close to the old blanket primary as we can accomplish and still meet the legal hurdles set forth by the courts. The general election ballot would have all of the candidates regardless of party. It would ask voters to express their first, second and third choices of candidates. This would allow for an instant runoff in the event that no candidate received a majority of the first choice votes. For more information, see www.yesonthree.com.

The state should consider such a system for the election of state level officials as well. The voters of the state of Washington hate the pick-a-party primary. Voters who have used IRV like it. Let's do the voter friendly thing and shift the elections of the state of Washington to IRV.

Ladenburg's Comments on the Charter Amendments

2006-08-14T18:01:00.000-07:00

Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg spoke before the Lakewood Rotary Club on the proposed Charter Amendments on the ballot in November. In an email, he summarised his comments to the Club.

I was critical of all the proposals and pointed out that some are conflicting, some repeat practices already in place and some are going to cost millions with no real benefit. I will publically oppose them all as completely unnecessary and expensive.

Meeting Agenda for June 22

2006-06-22T05:32:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-18T11:47:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-18T04:13:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-15T02:39:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-14T19:58:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-14T19:35:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-14T18:25:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-11T06:24:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-10T18:43:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-10T18:29:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-10T18:25:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-07T18:29:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-04T20:25:00.000-07:00

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

Concern for Jim Walton

2006-05-31T20:44:00.000-07:00

During the debate on the proposed charter amendment to raise the number of County Council members to nine at the May 25 Pierce County Charter Review Commission meeting, Jim Walton worried about his mental state. He thought he was sounding like a .....Republican!

Jim was opposing the additional government spending associated with enlarging the County Council. Jim was making a good point, even if it wasn't one he is accustomed to making.

Jim, don't worry. Saving taxpayer money is an honorable vocation.

Agenda for June 1, 2006 meeting

2006-05-31T20:40:00.000-07:00

Pierce County
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

June 1, 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
May 25, 2006

6. Reports

7. Proposal #11 – Size and Make Up of Pierce County Council – Submitted by Commissioner Merrival
a. Reading
b. Discussion

8. Proposal #12 – Election and Period of Office – Submitted by Commissioner Talcott
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

9. Proposal #13 – Limitations on Campaign Contributions – Submitted by Commissioner Talcott
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

10. Proposal #15 – Separation of Assessor and Treasurer – Submitted by Commissioner Davidson
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

11. Proposal #16 - Eminent Domain - Submitted by Commissioners Hymans and Walton
a. Reading
b. Discussion

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

13. Commission Comment – (3 minute time limit)

14. Next Meeting Time and Place – Special Meeting Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. place to be determined.

15. Adjournment

The Gerrymandering "Game"

2006-05-17T08:05:00.000-07:00

In the testimony heard by the Pierce County Charter Review Commission thus far, some have expressed dissatisfaction with the Districting Committee process. The problem is with the task being given to the Districting Committee, not the particular process being used. Some people have recommended a process which sounds like the "cracking" methodology described below. As shown below, so long as we have single member districts, there will be political implications of either "packing" or "cracking". To effectively reduce the political implications of the Districting process, the County would have to shift from our current set of Districts for electing County Council members.

The material below is based on a section of Real Choice, New Voices by Douglas Amy. For people in interested in more detail about multi-member districts, this book is recommended.

Our current election system guarantees that there will be minorities in every district who remain unrepresented by someone with their political views. District lines can be drawn either to shut out minority voices or strengthen them — A process called "gerrymandering." As this game illustrates, the way in which district lines are drawn has a great effect on who wins representation in Single-Member District, Winner-Take-All elections.

Below is a map of the political geography of a typical city. There are 40 Democrats (D) concentrated in the center and 32 Republicans (R) dominating the suburbs. Our current winner-take-all election system divides such areas up into districts, each represented by a single elected official. The city pictured must be divided into four districts, each with six "neighborhoods" (a cluster of three letters).

First, imagine how to draw district lines to create a district plan which gives Republicans a strong advantage over Democrats. (Hint: The tactic known as "packing," in which strongly partisan areas are packed into a single district, should be used here.)

Next, create a district plan where the Democrats have the advantage. (Hint: "Crack" the Republicans among several districts.)

When you think you have it figured out, check out the solutions below.

Here are the solutions to the "Gerrymandering Game." In the upper map, you can see how district lines are drawn to "pack" most of the Democratic voters into a central district. Thus, on election day, one Democrat and three Republicans are likely to be elected. In a city that is 56 percent Democrat and 44 percent Republican, these districts would give the majority party only 25 percent of the seats, while the minority party would get three out of four seats.

In the second map, you can see how district lines divide Republican supporters evenly among the four districts. Thus, though a sizeable minority in the city (44 percent), they will probably see no Republicans elected. Democratic voters with a small numerical majority will get all the representation.

Of course, politicians know that Gerrymandering is more than a mere game. Every ten years, after the census, the redistricting process begins anew, and each time, parties who play a role in the districting process work to create "safe districts" for their candidates. This problem cannot be avoided using Single-Member Districts and Winner-Take-All voting — only elections using Multi-Member Proportional Districts can eliminate the problem of Gerrymandering and assure election results that accurately reflect the views of voters.

Agenda for May 18, 2006 meeting

2006-05-17T08:01:00.000-07:00

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

May 18, 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
May 11, 2006

6. Reports
a. Monthly Budget Report

7. Proposal #4S (2) – Citizen’s Oversight Board – Submitted by Commissioner Summers
a. Reading
b. Testimony – KC Office of Citizens Complaint - Sr. Ombudsman Colleen Albrecht
c. Public Hearing
d. Discussion

8. Proposal #9d – Balance of Power – Submitted by Commissioner Chase
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

9.
Proposal #10 – Districting – Submitted by Pierce County Executive
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

Proposal #10a – Districting – Submitted by Commissioner Talcott
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

10. Proposal #11 – Size and Make Up of Council – Submitted by Commissioner Merrival
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

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

12. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, May 25, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

13. Adjournment

Meeting Agenda for May 11, 2006

2006-05-09T21:25:00.000-07:00

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

May 11, 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
April 27, 2006
May 4, 2006

6. Reports

7.
Proposal #9b – Balance of Power – Submitted by Commissioner Gustafson
a. Reading
b. Discussion

Proposal #9c – Balance of Power – Submitted by Commissioner Davidson
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

8. Proposal #4a (2) – GAO Function – Submitted by the Citizen’s Oversight Committee
a. Reading
b. Discussion

9. Proposal #4S (1) – Citizen’s Overview Board – Submitted by the Citizen’s Oversight Committee
a. Reading
b. Discussion

10. Proposal #14 – Personnel Board – Submitted by the Citizen’s Oversight Committee
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

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

12. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

13. Adjournment

Meeting Agenda for May 4

2006-05-02T05:21:00.000-07:00

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

May 4, 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

6. Proposal #9b – Balance of Power – Submitted by Commissioner Gustafson
a. Reading
b. Discussion

Proposal #9c – Balance of Power – Submitted by Commissioner Davidson
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

7. Proposal #4a(1) – GAO Function – Submitted by the Citizen’s Oversight Committee
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

8. Proposal #4S(1) – Citizen’s Overview Board – Submitted by the Citizen’s Oversight Committee
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

9. Proposal #14 – Personnel Board – Submitted by the Citizen’s Oversight Committee
a. Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

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

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

12. Adjournment

Meeting Agenda for April 20

2006-04-18T20:28:00.000-07:00

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

April 20, 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
April 13, 2003 Regular Meeting

6. Chair Reports
a. Budget
b. Time lines/Scheduling
1. Proposal Submittals
c. Public Comments Agenda Placement
1. Move to End of Agenda & Confine to Identified Issues
d. Other Reports

7. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)

8. Proposal #6a – Initiative – Submitted by Commissioner Pelesky
a. First Reading
Proposal #6b – Referendum – Submitted by Commissioner Pelesky
a. First Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

9. Proposal #7 – Biannual Budget Process – Submitted by the Pierce County Council
a. First Reading
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion

10. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

11. Adjournment

Meeting Agenda for April 13

2006-04-11T20:17:00.000-07:00

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

April 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. Approval of Minutes
April 6, 2006 Regular Meeting

6. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)

7. Proposal #5 – Rank Choice Voting – Submitted by Commissioner Haughton
a. Second Reading
b. Expert Testimony
1. Pierce County Auditor Pat McCarthy
2. Caleb Kleppner of Election Solutions
3. Representatives of Political Parties
c. Discussion

8. District 4 Vacant Position - Subcommittee Report and Recommendations
a. Top Three Ranked Candidates Presentation – 3 minutes each
b. Commissions Question/Answer Period – 5 minutes per candidate

9. Next Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Pierce Transit, 3720 96th Street S.W., Lakewood, Washington

10. Adjournment

Charter Commission works down list of issues

2006-04-10T20:19:00.000-07:00

The Pierce County Charter Review Commission is going about its work of addressing the issues brought before it by the public and its own members. Aaron Corvin of the Tacoma News Tribune writes about the progress of the Commission and where we are headed next.

Balance of Power by Aaron Corvin

2006-04-10T20:15:00.000-07:00

At the Pierce County Charter Review Commission meetings, there has been much discussion over the issue of the balance of power between the Executive and the County Council. Aaron Corvin writes in the Tacoma News Tribune about the perceptions of the Executive and the County Council members about this issue. This is a timely piece by Corvin and deserves review by members of the Commission.

Open Public Meetings

2006-04-09T15:38:00.000-07:00

By Rick Sorrels

On 23 Mar 2006, the Commissioners discussed whether transmitting E-Mails to each other violated the Open Public Meeting Act. The focus was on what number of Commissioners equaled a quorum to determine whether a “meeting” had occurred. They missed the point.

The Open Public Meeting Act (RCW Chapter 42.30) requires that all “actions be taken openly” and that all “deliberations be conducted openly” so that “the People” “may remain in control over the instruments they have created”. Case law provides that the “purpose of the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) is to permit the public to observe all steps in the making of government decisions” (110 Wn App 212).

To comply with OPMA, ALL deliberations and evidence considered by the Commissioners MUST be available for review and inspection by the public. “Secret” evidence which is distributed or communicated between the Commissioners (any number of Commissioners) would violate the law. Great care should be given that ALL evidence considered is handled openly and made available to the public.

Conversely, case law allows unlimited distribution of routine administrative info, like meeting times, places, etc, which does not contain any evidence or affect the substance of the actions to be taken by the Commissioners.

In summary, the “distribution” of E-Mails is not the problem. The problem is the content of the E-Mail. “Evidence” cannot be distributed, discussed, or considered in secret from the public, either by E-Mail, telephone, written papers, or other means. Such acts would deny the Public its right to access and control over its own creation (the CRC) as guaranteed under Washington Law.

The Public has more rights than merely attending and speaking at the Commission’s meetings. The Commission needs to ensure that all “evidence” and deliberations are available for public review and inspection. Posting on the blogsite, handouts at meetings, etc should all meet the requirement. Distributing E-Mails and papers (containing anything of substance) out of view of the public will not.

A number of the Commissioners “talk the talk” about open and transparent government, the public is interested in seeing if they also “walk the walk” themselves.

Rick Sorrels March 2006

Partisan/Non-Partisan, Part 2

2006-04-09T15:33:00.000-07:00

By Rick Sorrels

Reference my first article on Partisan/Nonpartisan elections to which I spoke briefly on 23 Mar 2006. One of the Commissioners believed that definitions for partrisan and nonpartisan were contained in the WAC.

I made a careful review of the WAC and could NOT find definitions for the terms “partisan” or “nonpartisan”. The terms remain undefined, ambiguous, and varied in meaning.

Including undefined terms in proposed Charter amendments, and making vague reference to “general law” (which both Black’s and Ballentine’s define as “statutes”) when such statutes do not exist is a recipe for future legal challenges and brouhahas which the citizens should not have to endure. Please consider tightening up the language.

Rick Sorrels March 2006

Meeting Agenda for April 6

2006-04-06T11:47:00.000-07:00

Pierce County Charter Review Commission
Pierce Transit
Rainier Room

3720 96th Street S.W.
Lakewood, Washington

April 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. Approval of Minutes
March 23, 2006 Regular Meeting - Revised
March 30, 2003 Regular Meeting

6. Public Comment (3 minute time limit)

7. Preference Vote on Issues List

8. Proposal #4s – GAO Function
Remove from Table

9. Proposal #5 – Rank Choice Voting – Submitted by Commissioner Haughton
a. First Reading
b. Expert Testimony
Rich Anderson-Connolly
c. Public Hearing
d. Discussion

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

11. Adjournment

Charter Amendment for Non-Partisan Offices

2006-03-31T08:17:00.000-08:00

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.

Meeting Agenda for March 30, 2006

2006-03-29T04:18:00.000-08:00

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

Notice of Vacancy

2006-03-27T20:15:00.000-08:00

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 jkingpccrc@yahoo.com. All applications must be submitted by April 6, 2006.

Voter Education on Ranked Choice Voting

2006-03-25T05:27:00.000-08:00

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.

Referendum/Initiative Review and Ranked Choice Voting

2006-03-24T04:09:00.000-08:00

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.

Vacancy Declared for Pierce County Charter Review Commission

2006-03-23T22:19:00.000-08:00

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 Jablking@aol.com.

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

Meeting Agenda for March 23, 2006

2006-03-23T05:59:00.000-08:00

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

Term Limits Opinion by Bob Dick

2006-03-19T20:54:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-19T08:19:00.000-08:00

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.

Meeting Agenda for March 16, 2006

2006-03-14T20:16:00.000-08:00

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

Elected Sheriff Proposal Vote

2006-03-12T22:09:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-12T20:18:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-12T20:11:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-12T20:08:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-12T19:29:00.000-08:00

Vote Counting Machines

2006-03-07T14:46:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-07T05:37:00.000-08:00

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

Agenda for Meeting on March 9, 2006

2006-03-06T18:29:00.000-08:00

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

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

Autonomy for the Sheriff?

2006-03-05T06:46:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-05T06:31:00.000-08:00

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.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard

2006-03-04T14:31:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-04T06:53:00.000-08:00

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.

Amendment to make some offices non-partisan

2006-02-28T19:49:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-28T19:43:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-26T17:38:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-26T09:36:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-26T09:29:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-24T21:28:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-24T21:25:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-23T07:55:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-23T07:43:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-23T07:41:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-23T07:39:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-14T20:06:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-14T20:00:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-12T10:35:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-11T10:44:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-11T10:30:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-09T22:26:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-08T06:39:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-06T20:09:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-06T19:31:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-03T18:03:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-02T04:50:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-01T18:53:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-01T18:19:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-01T16:58:00.000-08:00

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

Ranked Choice Voting Research

2006-01-31T05:31:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Upcoming Meetings of Pierce County Charter Review Commission

2006-01-20T17:17:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Lewis public comment on Ranked Choice Voting

2006-01-16T05:06:00.000-08:00

Ranked Choice Voting

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

Most eligible voters do not vote in most elections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is how it would be explained to the voter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horne promotes Elected Sheriff

2006-01-15T11:26:00.000-08:00

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

Additional Comments from Don Williams

2006-01-14T05:45:00.000-08:00

Ladies and Gentlemen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just trying to help.

Regards, Don Williams

Letter from League of Women Voters

2006-01-13T20:22:00.000-08:00

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

January 12, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Williams presentation to Charter Review Commission

2006-01-13T20:18:00.000-08:00

Presented By:
Donald S. Williams
Tacoma, WA

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

Issues Presented

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider these for inclusion in the Pierce County Charter.

Donald S. Williams

Revised Agenda for January 12 meeting

2006-01-11T22:10:00.000-08:00

Pierce County

REVISED AGENDA

PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

January 12, 2006
7:00 p.m.

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

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

Suggestions for changes to the Pierce County Charter by Randy Boss

2006-01-08T18:50:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 4.9 The term limits question again...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randy Boss
(253) 858-5100

Summary of January 5 meeting by Burt Talcott

2006-01-07T14:38:00.000-08:00

Saturday, January 07, 2006
Dear CRC colleagues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elected Sheriff Editorial

2006-01-06T07:28:00.000-08:00

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

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

Ranked Choice Voting by Erne Lewis

2006-01-02T07:45:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erne Lewis, Gig Harbor

Meetings on January 5 and 12

2006-01-01T09:47:00.000-08:00

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

January 5 Agenda

1. Swearing in Ceremony

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

2. Reception

3. Orientation

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

b) Briefing on Open Meetings Act - Susan Long

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

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

January 12 Agenda

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

Charter Thoughts by George Robison

2005-12-30T10:08:00.000-08:00

In reviewing comments made by John Ladenburg and several County Council members, it seems to me that there should be a provision in the charter that the County Executive is to sign contracts only after funding and contract terms have been approved by the council. The News Tribune reported last week a Ladenburg comment that council members needed to keep in mind that the County Executive was the only one authorized to sign contracts and that he therefore had the right to go ahead and sign golf course related contracts even though the council had not acted to fund them.

The Sheriff should be elected so that the office is responsive to the public. An appointed person needs only satisfy the appointing authority. The office should be subject to direct scrutiny by the taxpayers or provide funding and not be subject solely to the County Executive.

George Robison, Gig Harbor

Election reform by Krist Novoselic

2005-12-27T09:44:00.000-08:00

A Washington State System?

This is a guest post by Krist Novoselic, a board member of the Center for Voting and Democracy and a Washington state resident.

There is a battle in Federal Court regarding our primary elections. The struggle is between two principles. But Washington State need not choose between free association and more choices with our elections.

Ranked Choice Voting is a versatile electoral system with many benefits. It’s an idea worthy of the Pierce County Charter Review Commission’s consideration.

Here is an overview of where things are and where they can go.

Cajun Primary

I-872, the Top-Two Primary passed by a 59.84% majority. Voters wanted a primary with more choices that was like the late Blanket Primary. The restrictive Montana Primary, tired out by voters mere weeks before the general election ballot question, was unpopular and voters spoke accordingly in November.

It’s likely the Top Two Primary will be restored – but with ballots featuring candidates lacking any party designation.

The US Supreme Court set the stage for non-partisan primary elections when it struck down California’s Blanket primary (1). In that ruling, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority on the court, said a non-partisan Blanket Primary, “ … has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party’s nominee.”

The cosmetic remedy of erasing party designation off the ballot comes at a high cost to voters. The valuable information voters get by the little D, R or whatever affiliation next to a candidates’ name is important. A non-partisan ballot deprives voters of this informative tool.

Big Sky Liabilities

Let’s face it; while the Montana Primary does protect a political party’s rights, it does little to speak to the valid frustrations of most Washington voters.

Many voters perceive the Montana system as a benefit only to the major political parties at the expense of taxpayers.

Most elections are uncontested or uncompetitive in our state – and primary elections are even more so. The Montana system only aggravates this sad state of affairs. Few or no choices on a partisan ballot can make voting virtually meaningless.

Don’t be fooled by thinking Washington voters will become comfortable with the Montana primary over time. I-872’s formidable near 60% poll showing will embolden its resurrection in non-partisan form.

Ranked Choice Voting – A Friendly Alternative

We need not adhere to the false dichotomy between more choices and free association currently slogging through public discourse regarding our elections.

On October 25th 2005, a group of Washington State citizens, myself included, came together with the Center for Voting and Democracy, to file a friend-of-the-court brief (2) in the appeal before the US 9th Circuit Court, that seeks to overturn I-872, the top-two primary.

All of the parties in the case seek to block the Court from considering this valuable information, ostensibly because of a supposed sense of urgency or that, greater voter choice, vote dispersal problems and freedom of association are somehow irrelevant to this lawsuit.

But most Washington voters are not in any hurry to participate in primary elections as evidenced this past September when 63% shrugged off primaries.

By filing this brief, we recognize the deeper challenges regarding our state’s elections. Too many citizens hold our democratic structures in low esteem. Most races are uncontested or uncompetitive. And primary elections only tend to make the situation worse.

Our brief seeks to draw the Court’s attention to a small modification of the top-two system that would;
• alleviate the concerns of all parties involved,
• remove the constitutional problems created by I-872,
• ultimately build a quality democratic system that would invite increased participation

Modifying I-872 with a ranked choice ballot would still narrow the field to two candidates who, regardless of party affiliation, then advance to a general election.

The main difference is that each voter ranks the candidates for office in his or her order of preference, from the first choice down through as many candidates as the voter chooses to rank, or as many as the rules permit. It’s as easy as listing 1 – 2 – 3. Votes are counted in a series of rounds. Each round eliminates the candidate with the fewest votes and redistributes ballots to those voters’ next choices. This process of redistribution and elimination is repeated in subsequent rounds and the top two ranked candidates advance to the general election.

Ranked choice voting accommodates the elimination of the self-identification provision that doomed I-872. Parties could be allowed to nominate their own candidates. However, in order to re-create the wider choice benefits of I-872, parties would be allowed to nominate multiple candidates for office. With ranked choice voting, parties could be assured of their votes converging on their most popular candidates while avoiding dispersion problems. Parties would hence have great incentive to nominate a diverse field of qualified candidates from within their party in order to bring a wider swath of their supporters to the polls.

Partisan voters could rank their candidates faithfully, while at the same time, independent voters who do not wish to vote along any party line may now select candidates from a larger mixed pool thus preserving the wider choices of I-872.

Benefits

A Ranked Choice Blanket Primary promises many more benefits. In San Francisco, where Ranked Choice Voting is used, negative campaigning was greatly reduced. In fact, rival candidates actually endorsed each other, vying for their opponent’s supporters second choice.

Ranked Choice Voting fosters positive participation because voters express themselves without feeling like they’re throwing their vote away or wasting their vote – a tragic reality in the lexicon of American democracy.

Washington voters could get better value out of our primary elections. Most races are uncontested thus poorly attended. Why not utilize this smart and efficient system in otherwise mostly redundant elections?

As we mention in our brief, this is a system that can be built on. Down the road, we can choose to fold the primary into one efficient ranked choice general election. This will shorten the election season and save tax dollars. Pierce County can lead the state with this important electoral innovation.

Ultimately, we can consider the Proportional Voting version of ranked ballots that would;
• make our county and legislative races much more competitive,
• give voter’s real choices
• increase the voice in Olympia of candidates and voters around our state who are politically handicapped because of redistricting.

Constitutionality

Legal precedents show Ranked Choice systems as fully consistent with the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution (3), and also complying with the Voting Rights Act (4).

No provision of the Washington State Constitution poses any barrier to the ranking of candidates in a primary. Ranked Choice Voting does not interfere with voters’ guaranteed right to free and equal election as it does not frustrate the voters’ will and allows each voter an equal opportunity to rank their choices. In 1908, the Supreme Court of Washington upheld a Ranked Choice system very similar to the one proposed here for our state primary (5).

Foes of ranked ballots in San Francisco tried hard to slow its implementation after it was passed by voters. But they ultimately failed and ranked choice voting stands unchallenged because of its solid case law. Once put into place, voters were wildly enthusiastic about more real choices. All the benefits did come to fruition.

Conclusion

Pierce County needs to consider ranked ballots. This innovation speaks to many of the problems currently weighing on our democracy.

When looking at all the uncompetitive or uncontested races, lack of participation and voter cynicism the question begs to be asked – is this the best democracy can get?

The Charter Commission and Pierce County voters must ask themselves this question.

Krist Novoselic

Footnotes;
1. California Democratic Party v. Jones 530 U.S. 567 (2000)
2. Amici Curiae Brief Of Fairvote – The Center For Voting And Democracy et al. See http://fixour.us/editorials/11.1.05.html
3. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 18 (1964). Moore v. Election Comm’rs of Cambridge, 35 N.E.2d 222, 238 (Mass. 1941)
4. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986).
5. State v. Nichols, 50 Wash. 508, 97 P. 728 (1908). See http://wahdems.org/rcv.html

Eminent Domain by Nathan the "Pajama Jihadist"

2005-12-10T14:13:00.000-08:00

EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE PIERCE COUNTY CHARTER

In light of the Kelo decision many citizens, myself included, have become concerned about potential abuses of the government's right of eminent domain. Those of us in the State of Washington have been somewhat mollified by our State's Constitution, which in Article 1, Section 16 prohibits the taking of private land for private use (with certain limited exceptions), and provides judicial review to ascertain whether the seizure of private property is really for public use.

However, there are ways around these constitutional restrictions. The condemnation of the Sinking Ship parking garage by the Seattle Monorail Project is a perfect case in point.

Despite the fact that the monorail station SMP intended to build on the Sinking Ship parcel would only take about one quarter to one third of the property, and in spite of the fact that HTK L.L.C., the owners ofthe Sinking Ship, were willing to work with the Monorail Authority, SMP condemned the entire property with the intention of selling the unused portion at a profit once construction was complete.

HTK objected, and fought the condemnation all the way to the State Supreme Court, but even given the protections afforded by the State Constitution, the Court ruled in favor of the SMP (see the majority opinion in the matter of the petition of the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority and Jim Johnson's pointed dissent).

It is clear to me that further limitations on the right of eminent domain are necessary in order to protect citizens from the unreasonable seizure of their property by the government.

We in Pierce County are fortunate to be in a position to do something about that. In accordance with the Pierce County Charter, a CharterReview Commission has been empanelled that will "review the Charter to determine its adequacy and suitability to the needs of the County and .. . propose amendments."

Here's what I'd like to see the Pierce County Charter say in regards to eminent domain: No property taken for public use may be sold, leased or otherwise transfered to private ownership within ten years of its condemnation unless it be returned to its original owner.

Such a restriction would lessen the temptation to seize property for a purely temporary "public use" and then turn around and sell that property to the highest bidder.

For more by Nathan, see http://www.pajamajihad.org

Washington State Constitution - Article 11

2005-12-10T13:24:00.000-08:00

The section of the Washington State Constitution about Home Rule Counties can be found here.
The section most relevant to the Pierce County Charter Review Commission in 2006 is Section 4 shown below.

SECTION 4 COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATION. The legislature shall establish a system of county government, which shall be uniform throughout the state except as hereinafter provided, and by general laws shall provide for township organization, under which any county may organize whenever a majority of the qualified electors of such county voting at a general election shall so determine; and whenever a county shall adopt township organization, the assessment and collection of the revenue shall be made, and the business of such county and the local affairs of the several townships therein, shall be managed and transacted in the manner prescribed by such general law. Any county may frame a "Home Rule" charter for its own government subject to the Constitution and laws of this state, and for such purpose the legislative authority of such county may cause an election to be had, at which election there shall be chosen by the qualified voters of said county not less than fifteen (15) nor more than twenty-five (25) freeholders thereof, as determined by the legislative authority, who shall have been residents of said county for a period of at least five (5) years preceding their election and who are themselves qualified electors, whose duty it shall be to convene within thirty (30) days after their election and prepare and propose a charter for such county. Such proposed charter shall be submitted to the qualified electors of said county, and if a majority of such qualified electors voting thereon ratify the same, it shall become the charter of said county and shall become the organic law thereof, and supersede any existing charter, including amendments thereto, or any existing form of county government, and all special laws inconsistent with such charter. Said proposed charter shall be published in two (2) legal newspapers published in said county, at least once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks prior to the day of submitting the same to the electors for their approval as above provided. All elections in this Section authorized shall only be had upon notice, which notice shall specify the object of calling such election and shall be given for at least ten (10) days before the day of election in all election districts of said county. Said elections may be general or special elections and except as herein provided, shall be governed by the law regulating and controlling general or special elections in said county. Such charter may be amended by proposals therefor submitted by the legislative authority of said county to the electors thereof at any general election after notice of such submission published as above specified, and ratified by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon. In submitting any such charter or amendment thereto, any alternate article or proposition may be presented for the choice of the voters and may be voted on separately without prejudice to others. Any home rule charter proposed as herein provided, may provide for such county officers as may be deemed necessary to carry out and perform all county functions as provided by charter or by general law, and for their compensation, but shall not affect the election of the prosecuting attorney, the county superintendent of schools, the judges of the superior court, and the justices of the peace, or the jurisdiction of the courts. Notwithstanding the foregoing provision for the calling of an election by the legislative authority of such county for the election of freeholders to frame a county charter, registered voters equal in number to ten (10) per centum of the voters of any such county voting at the last preceding general election, may at any time propose by petition the calling of an election of freeholders. The petition shall be filed with the county auditor of the county at least three (3) months before any general election and the proposal that a board of freeholders be elected for the purpose of framing a county charter shall be submitted to the vote of the people at said general election, and at the same election a board of freeholders of not less than fifteen (15) or more than twenty-five (25), as fixed in the petition calling for the election, shall be chosen to draft the new charter. The procedure for the nomination of qualified electors as candidates for said board of freeholders shall be prescribed by the legislative authority of the county, and the procedure for the framing of the charter and the submission of the charter as framed shall be the same as in the case of a board of freeholders chosen at an election initiated by the legislative authority of the county. In calling for any election of freeholders as provided in this Section, the legislative authority of the county shall apportion the number of freeholders to be elected in accordance with either the legislative districts or the county commissioner districts, if any, within said county, the number of said freeholders to be elected from each of said districts to be in proportion to the population of said districts as nearly as may be. Should the charter proposed receive the affirmative vote of the majority of the electors voting thereon, the legislative authority of the county shall immediately call such special election as may be provided for therein, if any, and the county government shall be established in accordance with the terms of said charter not more than six (6) months after the election at which the charter was adopted. The terms of all elective officers, except the prosecuting attorney, the county superintendent of schools, the judges of the superior court, and the justices of the peace, who are in office at the time of the adoption of a Home Rule Charter shall terminate as provided in the charter. All appointive officers in office at the time the charter goes into effect, whose positions are not abolished thereby, shall continue until their successors shall have qualified. After the adoption of such charter, such county shall continue to have all the rights, powers, privileges and benefits then possessed or thereafter conferred by general law. All the powers, authority and duties granted to and imposed on county officers by general law, except the prosecuting attorney, the county superintendent of schools, the judges of the superior court and the justices of the peace, shall be vested in the legislative authority of the county unless expressly vested in specific officers by the charter. The legislative authority may by resolution delegate any of its executive or administrative powers, authority or duties not expressly vested in specific officers by the charter, to any county officer or officers or county employee or employees. The provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7, and the first sentence of Section 8 of this Article as amended shall not apply to counties in which the government has been established by charter adopted under the provisions hereof. The authority conferred on the board of county commissioners by Section 15 of Article II as amended, shall be exercised by the legislative authority of the county.[AMENDMENT 21, 1947 Senate Joint Resolution No. 5, p 1372. Approved November 2, 1948.]
Original text - Art. 11 Section 4 COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATION - The legislature shall establish a system of county government which shall be uniform throughout the state, and by general laws shall provide for township organization, under which any county may organize whenever a majority of the qualified electors of such county voting at a general election shall so determine, and whenever a county shall adopt township organization the assessment and collection of the revenue shall be made and the business of such county, and the local affairs of the several townships therein shall be managed and transacted in the manner prescribed by such general laws.

Roberts Rules of Order

2005-12-09T15:06:00.000-08:00

To get a copy of Robert's Rules of Order, here is the official site. http://www.robertsrules.com