Voters in Snohomish County will see six countywide measures on the ballot, all proposed changes to the County's charter. As Vice Chairman of the County's Charter Review Commission that placed the measures on the ballot I am not allowed to speak for or against the propositions in an official capacity. But, as a private citizen I can (an odd distinction I know, but that's state ethics law for you). As an individual voter I'll be voting for all six, and here's a rundown.
All the ballot measures are available online, and voters can use this link to pull up a personalized voter pamphlet to view the pro and con statements for the measures (I helped write five of the pro statements).
While the measures themselves haven't captured a great deal of attention, there is some press coverage worth digesting. The Everett Herald endorsed all six measures, as did the Enterprise, Snohomish County's largest weekly newspaper. At the Seattle Times, Lance Dickie covered the measures in an editorial column, indicating his support for all six measures, though noting a couple may face some voter skepticism.
As to the six measures themselves, three are non-controversial, lacking any organized opposition. Proposition 1 would create an independent salary commission, modeled on the state's, to eliminate political gamesmanship on salaries for County elected officials. Proposition 4 melds several ideas heard by the Commission into a measure to improve public input to the County Council, while enhancing public access to the Council's work. Proposition 5 is a necessary amendment of the County charter to conform to recent changes in state election law.
Three measures do have some opposition, which can be read in the local Voters' Pamphlet. Proposition 2 would give the County the option to implement a biennial rather than annual budget, as allowed for in state law. I've personally witnessed in my work on the County Executive's Priorities Based Budget Guidance Team that the county would benefit by utilizing a biennial budget. County staff and officials currently spend too much time on the repetitive annual process of preparing a budget every year, instead of working to make county operations more effective and efficient. Every member of the Commission who had previously served as a County official or a State Legislator supported giving the County this choice.
Proposition 3 would give the County Executive a section veto, rather than the all-or-nothing veto currently in place. The section veto is not to be confused with the more controversial line-item veto that essentially amounts to an editorial pen in the Executive's hands (the Governor currently has section veto authority). The change was supported in testimony to the Commission by County Executive Aaron Reardon, as well as by Councilmen John Koster and Gary Nelson.
Proposition 6 would improve accountability in county government by placing the County's Performance Auditor under the County Council. The Performance Auditor currently reports to the County Auditor, an odd situation since the County Auditor doesn't actually perform audits (he oversees the Departments of Elections, Licensing, and Recording), and since most Performance Auditors around the country report to the Legislative Branch. The current Auditor Bob Terwilliger, the current Performance Auditor Kymber Waltmunson, the former Performance Auditor and current Treasurer Bob Dantini, as well as Councilmen Koster and Nelson voiced support for such a change to the Commission. Also of note, a number of the leadership of the Snohomish County Republican Party support this proposition.
As stated, I personally support all six propositions. For those interested, I'm happy to answer any questions on the measures in the comments, or at ericearling at gmail dot com.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 22, 2006 04:25 PM | Email ThisLook forward to other comments on these other resolutions, too!
Snohomish County citizens:
1.) remember to use a #2 pencil or black pen,
2.) Write only ONE connecting line between the Arrow you select.
3.) SIGN YOUR Purple BALLOT Envelope
4.) Support your local GOP phone bank in calling others to Get Out The Vote GOTV. I am working to get Mike McGavick elected as State Senator 2006.
Below my funny humorus suggestion
5.) :>) :>) Vote early, Vote Often, Vote Fast :>) :>) hi, hi, hi
Koster sent me an email telling me to vote no on position 2- the biennial budget. And he told me to vote for all Republicans. He is not fair and balanced at all. He is also for the property rights initiative.
At least Eric's group put forth some straightforward charter amendments instead of big issue ones.
Posted by: swatter on October 23, 2006 08:44 AMThe State Performance Auditor is obviously expanding operations thanks to I-900, but our conversations with him indicated they are going to be occupied with state agencies and other high profile entities (not county governments) for quite some time. The county is generally on its own for Performance Audits, as has traditionally been the case.
As to how the Performance Auditor would fare under future Councils, I'd rather have the position reporting to five elected officials who will balance each other out rather than only one County official (the Auditor) who has the ability to limit the Performance Auditor rather easily in the current structure if that person so desires.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 23, 2006 10:28 AM"The performance auditor shall be named through appointment by a majority vote of the
county council and shall serve a term of four years unless removed for cause."
No on #5: Is there a purpose here?
Do not like the elimination of 4.20
Like the changes to 4.30
Yes on #4. BUT - it does not go far enough. Executive sessions should be open as well.
No on #3: Is there a purpose here?
Yes on #2: Multi-year budgets.... it is about time.
No on #1: Too many problems with this one.
*Salary increases should be tied to performance audits.
*Position should be non-partisan.
*Members should not be members of any other committee, the council, work for a government agency, or hold government contracts.
*Salary commission should approve all pay increases before the budget is passed. According to ammendment, commission only meets biennially.
Yes, there is a very serious purpose to #5 on Elections Issues. If it does note pass, the County will have to violate its own charter to comply with state election law changes, which include moving the primary to August. The changes are not optional unless we want even more chaos in the election system, and I should note the Commission approved putting this on the ballot unanimously.
Also, striking 4.20 allows candidates to run as Green, Libertarian, Independent, etc., per state law. 4.20 previously only allowed non-major party candidates in partisan county races to run as "Independent"...this change gives candidates and voters more choices.
On another of your questions, the Charter Review Commission considered the idea of an elected Performance Auditor. The only places around the country where that is done is in larger jurisdictions, with a serious track record of supporting performance auditing. Snohomish County doesn't have that track record, and candidly already has a weak pool of candidates for county offices. The Commission had serious concerns about the quality of candidates one would get for such an office. Thus, we pursued the best available option for our county.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 23, 2006 12:18 PM