The scandal surrounding the actions of the King County Department of Elections in the 2004 gubernatorial recount led directly to a citizens initiative to make the Director of Elections an elected position. I personally thought this was an over reaction that in the long run will be no better than appointment by the King County Executive with Council ratification. One problem is an appointed director can be fired immediately for a foul up like 2004 but an elected director stays in office for the balance of his or her term.
Nevertheless, the initiative passed with 56% of the vote so we now have to choose from among six candidates in a winner take all election. Theoretically, our new Director of Elections could win office with slightly less than 17% of the vote. If one measures interest in this election by attendance at candidate forums or media coverage, it is hard to believe public vetting of these candidates is superior to an appointive system. So far, the media reports have centered on one candidate's financial troubles and another's residency. In other words, hiring the Director of Elections has become just another typical political campaign emphasizing the negative.
So who should get the job? The Director of Elections is now a political office. That makes political experience important. It is an administrative job overseeing a large number of full and part time employees so executive and people skills are very important. Salesmanship, the Director will have to "sell" the department's budget to the Council and manage it. Ability to understand technical issues involved in voting equipment and processes is required. And of course integrity, honesty and fairness are all traits we should expect.
Only two of the six have the political experience of holding elective office, former King County Council Member David Irons and current State Senator Pam Roach from Auburn. Senator Roach falls short in the people skills necessary to manage a large organization. Retired banker Bill Anderson, David Irons and current Elections Director Sherril Huff appear to have executive experience but Anderson lacks the political component and Ron Sims, who was up to his eyebrows in the 2004 debacle, appointed and now endorses Huff - a red flag in my book. Julie Kempf worked in the Elections Department and was fired for her performance. Christopher Clifford, a teacher in Orting, simply lacks the credentials for the office. David Irons stands out as the one candidate that best meets the qualifications needed for King County Director of Elections.
Disclosure: I have met David Irons but I have neither contributed to nor worked on the Irons' campaign.
Posted by warrenpeterson at January 19, 2009 01:23 PM | Email ThisI suppose if the fellow in charge sees it as a "foul up," the appointed director would be fired.
But, the apparent skulduggery in King County in the 2004 vote counting produced the desired result from the point of view of the guy in charge; so it wasn't perceived as a "foul up," and the top appointed guy responsible for the vote counting wasn't fired.
Maybe a majority of the voters would approach the situation in the same way, but the hope is that they would prefer to have vote counting that produces a valid result rather than a "desired" result.
Posted by: Micajah on January 19, 2009 03:10 PMAnd even if there is strong evidence for malfeasance or misfeasance, the petition for recall has to go to the courts, where the judges - often as not - have a working relationship with the official under fire. Upshot is, it's nearly impossible to recall an elected official in this state.
Nonetheless, I supported the iniative because a shakeup was necessary. Status quo was getting us nowhere.
Posted by: sro on January 19, 2009 04:28 PMAgreed that Pam Roach's people skills are a weak link. What about Julie Ann Kempf ? (she may deserve a look-see since Sims did not support her in the end).
Posted by: KS on January 19, 2009 06:15 PMI am voting for Tom Anderson because he has the ability to run and manage that office without having either party try to affect him or his decisions.
So Warren - you are wrong in your decision but thanks for your posting.
Posted by: me on January 19, 2009 08:20 PM2) Sherril Huff does have experience in elective office -- she was elected Auditor in Kitsap County, and also elected to the Bremerton City Council. But more importantly, her performance at King County Elections would not merit electing her to this office.
3) Julie Anne Kempf was fired -- by Ron Sims. Her side of the story is that she was fired for pushing back against Sims' unethical actions. I agree with your comment that Sims' appointment and endorsement of Huff is a red flag. By the same logic, I would be predisposed to believing Kempf's version of events before I believed Sims'.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 19, 2009 08:21 PMDavid Irons nor Pam Roach have the temperment to run this office. And without anyone else, Huff will get back in. But no one is talking about real election integrity yet.
Had Republicans kept Pam out, then David Irons would probably have a shot. But alas, there is never a perfect candidate.
More....
Posted by: Gentry Lange on January 19, 2009 09:00 PMShe also consistantly states that she champions the initiative process.
Which do you want? Someone who plays the game, or someone who changes the game and represents the people? The elections department belongs to us, the voters, NOT the government!!!!!!
That person is Pam Roach.
Posted by: Of the People By the People on January 21, 2009 04:18 PM