There's a spat now in Snohomish County government about the implementation of a hiring freeze. Surprise, surprise, the Council and Executive Aaron Reardon don't agree, with the Prosecutor siding with the Council.
I don't know enough about the particulars of this dispute to render an opinion. I do, however, recall an incident that makes me not reflexively give much credence to the Prosecutor's opinion (fairly or not).
During his first year in office, Reardon threatened a veto of the annual budget pending with the Council when the County was forced to deal with a particularly bad budget situation. After issuing that threat, Reardon was informed by the Prosecutor that she would sue him if he followed through with that budget veto.
That would be like our state's Attorney General suing the Governor for exercising his/her legal ability to veto a budget passed by the Legislature.
Thankfully some basic legal sense finally prevailed, but to this day it may be the dumbest thing I've heard of in government...and that's saying something.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 15, 2008 09:53 PM | Email ThisState government added over 8000 just in 4 years of Gregoire. Locke another 20+ thousand.
one out of five in this state working for the government is just not socialist enough.
Let's make every job in this state a state job.
Vote for Gregoire and you will continue to see this little socialist state turn out that way.
Posted by: gs on August 15, 2008 10:56 PMAny private org in the same boat would be trimming headcount, changing processes and cutting budgets.
I don't even understand how the prosecutor could sue? What is the crime? The real crime is these idiots wasting taxpayer dollars.
Posted by: ducttape2 on August 16, 2008 09:54 AMAny private org in the same boat would be trimming headcount, changing processes and cutting budgets.
I don't even understand how the prosecutor could sue? What is the crime? The real crime is these idiots wasting taxpayer dollars.
Posted by: ducttape2 on August 16, 2008 09:54 AMFigure 17 looks at rates for 2005-2007 - which is an opportunity to see if government job growth is outpacing private job growth, tracking steady or falling behind. (I presume we'd all want it to fall behind).
At rates of growth between 0.5 and 0.6 annually, it looks like the growth of government jobs is rising significantly slower than the private job rates in other categories that range from 1.5 to 11.2 percent a year (excepting natural resources and mining) with the overall job growth rates for the last three years at 2.7 to 3.3 percent a year.
Overall this looks like this document is a rich source of information - if facts are important to you.
OTOH, Janice Ellis WAS no friend of mine, but now is, as she has consistently over the last few years stepped up when I pointed out problems, and has worked them.
Reardon want to be a strong executive, like King Ron, and takes it out and whips it around accordingly. He needs a beatdown, on this and other things.
He appointed me to a volunteer committee where I served admirably for two years, the limit.
I applied for another volunteer assignment, but it was concurrent with me pointing out egregious errors to his Human Services Department director.
Suddenly, after everyone in the food chain approving, and my impeccable credentials for the volunteer position, my candidacy was squashed by a simple NO in an email from his office. Yes, he even beats down volunteers, who could help to make the county better.
Aaron Reardon is simply for Aaron, and doesn't give a rats about the rule of law, or working for the sheeples.
Posted by: The Geezer on August 16, 2008 01:20 PMi know this is off post, but i wanted to state the obvious: phelps rules. thanks for your posts earlier this year about the swimming. it was those posts that focused my attention on the phenomenal developments in swimming this year culminating in these olympic games.
Posted by: dinesh on August 16, 2008 11:26 PM
i know this is off post, but i wanted to state the obvious: phelps rules. thanks for your posts earlier this year about the swimming. it was those posts that focused my attention on the phenomenal developments in swimming this year culminating in these olympic games.
Posted by: dinesh on August 16, 2008 11:27 PM
Janice Ellis is right. Absolutely. Aaron Reardon has no authority to order any non-executive departments to halt hiring.
It's a very simple case. The Executive, no matter how much he wants to act like a King, cannot tell other departments what to do.
The Republicans were on the side of it being a strong executive but the Drewelites said it was a weak form of government. I tended to side with the strong side and so I applaud Reardon for exerting executive authority.
Posted by: swatter on August 18, 2008 09:03 AM"I applaud Reardon for exerting executive authority."
Even if he is breaking the law?
REALLY?
I can understand thinking he SHOULD have the authority to do it. But he doesn't. And therefore he shouldn't exercise authority he doesn't have. Rule of law and all.
The Council sets policy and provides funding to execute that policy. Administration of the 'execution' of that policy is the responsibility of the Executive. Doesn't the Executive have hiring/firing responsibilities?
If not, what a screwed up system.
Posted by: BA on August 18, 2008 11:03 AMBA, I think you are at the crux of the problem. Is it a weak executive system as purported by the Democrat Prosecutor or is it a strong executive system as annunciated by Reardon and his own legal staff and advisors?
I am surprised that purported R flaks aren't on-board. I believe one of the current Washinton State Supreme Court justices weighed in a couple of decades ago, as did the higherups in the R party. (This is before, I believe, any of the current R players political lifetimes).
Posted by: swatter on August 18, 2008 12:49 PMDo you find logical fallacies to be interesting? Perhaps you don't know it, but the proper way to argue against what I say is not to make ad hominem attacks. (Again you seem to have a problem with personal attacks, except for when you make them. Funny that.)
If you have an argument, make it. So far you've not done so. You've simply said you don't like what the law is, not that the law isn't what I've said.
The County Charter says, quite plainly: "All powers of the county, not reserved by the people or vested in specific offices by this charter, shall be vested in the county council." There is no power anywhere listed that remotely implies that the executive can order non-executive branches to freeze hiring (and it's debatable whether he could even order executive departments other than HIS OWN to do so), therefore the council alone holds that power.
This is the argument. Argue against it or don't. But simply slamming your fingers in your ears (and apparently connecting them somewhere along the way) doesn't actually make for an argument.
If this system is as described in the last post - what a way to muddle up responsibility and create management disarray.
Posted by: BA on August 18, 2008 07:07 PMWhat is a "non-executive" branch of county government other than Council Staff, and presumably branches that are headed by other elected officials?
The Council staff, at least, yes. The Charter does not give the Executive much authority over the other Executive departments, so I see no justification for the Executive freezing their hiring either: assessor, auditor, clerk, sheriff, treasurer, etc.
It may be that there's other bits in the law (other than in the charter) that give the Executive some measure of control over hiring in those departments, which is why I am reluctant to say he can't initiate a freeze. However, he certainly cannot initiate a countywide freeze that includes the Council staff, whereas the Council can initiate a hiring freeze over the entire county.
If this system is as described in the last post - what a way to muddle up responsibility and create management disarray.
Yeah, I don't know well enough to say, and am not defending the system. I'm just saying that whatever the system is, the rules must be followed, and Reardon didn't.
Could be worse, he could be Fred Walser! :-)