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

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

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

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.