MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OF KING COUNTY
King County Charter Amendments 1 through 8
November 4, 2008 General Election Ballot

There are eight amendments to the King County Charter on the ballot this November.  Two are placed on the ballot by citizen initiative (amendments 1 and 8), one is placed on the ballot by the King County Council (amendment 5), and five are recommendations of the King County Charter Review Commission (amendments 2, 3, 4 6, and 7).  Additional Charter amendments recommended by the Charter Review Commission will be placed on the 2009 and 2010 ballots.

Charter Amendment 1: Elect elections director – No

Charter Amendment 2: Anti-discrimination – Yes

Charter Amendment 3: Composition of regional committees – Yes

Charter Amendment 4: Qualifications of elected officials – No

Charter Amendment 5: Economic forecast office – Yes

Charter Amendment 6: Budget deadlines – Yes

Charter Amendment 7: Threshold to amend King County Charter – Yes

Charter Amendment 8: Make County offices nonpartisan – Yes

Amendment 1: Making the Elections Director an Elective Position (Initiative 25)

Shall the King County Charter be amended to provide that the position of county director of elections be created as a nonpartisan elected office?

Summary:

Amendment 1 was placed on the ballot in 2007 in a two-step process that is required to amend the Charter by citizen initiative.  In the first step, voters were asked in November 2007 whether they wished to consider amending the Charter to create the office of Elections Director as an elective position; now in the second step, the first having passed, voters are asked to vote on creation of the new elective office.

Arguments Pro:

• The Elections Director needs to be independent and have high integrity and credibility in ensuring the fairness of the elections process.  Yet the position reports to a partisan County Executive and County Council who may introduce their partisan motives into the elections process.

• The Elections Director needs to be able to advocate freely for the budget and technical resources needed to ensure smooth operational processes.

• Rather than being accountable to a partisan Executive, the Elections Director should be accountable directly to the people who have the most at stake in free and fair elections.

• The county auditors in all 38 of the other counties in Washington as well as the Secretary of State are elected.  In addition to their other duties, these officials serve as election officers of their jurisdictions.  Among the largest counties nationally, about half of election officials are elected.

• The Elections Director position has the discretion to set policy in many matters not governed by law and as a policymaker should be representative of the citizens.

• An elected position will increase public confidence and trust and it will send a positive message that the elections office is an independent, visible, stand-alone function.

Arguments Con:

• The Elections Director position in a large county like King County is largely administrative and managerial and should be filled by an appointed, professional staff person.

• Elected elections directors in Florida and Ohio have exacerbated problems with public trust in recent years by politicizing the handling of contested elections.

• While weaknesses existed in the County elections function in the past, the County has moved to address many of them and to upgrade the facilities and technology used in registering voters and processing ballots.  There have been numerous successful, error-free elections since the problems of 2003-2004.

• An elected County Elections Director would be subject to the need for fund-raising and political campaigning that would draw professional politicians, not experienced administrators, to the position.  This would also tend to distract the officeholder from duties in years when he or she is running for reelection.

• The County Charter, drafted by elected freeholders in the 1960s, was carefully designed to offer checks and balances on executive power and explicitly called for a distinction between policymaking and managerial roles in government.

The Municipal League recommends voting NO on Amendment 1.  The Municipal League in 2007 opposed the initiative that led to this amendment.  In the past we have also opposed creating the elective office of Sheriff, based on the rationale that a distinction should be maintained between professional management positions in government and policy positions that require representation of citizen will.

The integrity of the elections process demands independence and professional management in the elections function of government.  Consistent with the Municipal League position on record that leadership positions in King County government which require administrative and management expertise should be appointed, we oppose making Elections Director an elected office.  Politicizing the elections office is not the way to enhance public confidence in the elections function and could create opportunities for partisan interference.

Amendment 2: Anti-Discrimination (Proposed by the Charter Review Commission)

Shall Section 840 of the King County Charter be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression in county employment and in county contracting with nongovernmental entities?

Arguments Pro:

• Discrimination based on race, religion and gender is already prohibited by the Charter and by state law.  This amendment would add protections for disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.

• The prevailing established norm of the community in King County is toward tolerance and non-discrimination against persons who may be different from the mainstream.  There can be no employment-based justification for not treating people fairly in the contracting process and in the workplace, based merely on disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Arguments Con:

• None

The Municipal League recommends voting YES on Amendment 2.  Amendment 2 expands upon this community’s existing established norm in prohibiting discriminatory practices that are not related to the performance of a contract or an employment position.

Amendment 3: Composition of Regional Committees (Proposed by the Charter Review Commission)

Shall Sections 230.10, 270.20 and 270.30 of the King County Charter be amended to reduce the number of county council members on regional committees, establish a vice chair position on regional committees, authorize the regional policy committee to adopt its own work program and add authority for regional committees to initiate legislation?

Summary:

With the merger of Metro into King County government in 1994, three regional policy committees were created:  Regional Policy, Regional Transit and Regional Water Quality.  These committees are comprised of County Council members and city representatives with the intension of ensuring local government participation in regional policymaking.  The proposed Amendment 3 would reduce the number of County Council members on each committee without changing the 50/50 county/city voting balance and introduce several new powers to the committees.

Arguments Pro:

• Amendment 3 improves the balance of power between the County and cities on the three regional committees by giving cities new powers they did not previously have:  a city-appointed vice-chair on each committee; and the ability to initiate legislation, with a requirement that the County Council must consider such legislative proposals.

• When the Council size was reduced from 13 to 9 members several years ago, the remaining members were required to sit on more regional committees, leaving limited time to attend to other duties.  Reducing the Council member appointments from 6 to 3 on each regional committee helps address this issue.

• The new power to initiate legislation is a significant improvement over the previous advisory-only role of the regional committees.

• The creation of new city-appointed vice chairs gives the cities greater ability to influence the regional agenda.

Arguments Con:

• By weighting the three Council member votes as two votes each on the regional committees, the balance of power between the County and the cities remains unchanged.  The measure is merely a token, not a real change.

• Allowing the regional committees to initiate legislation is a small step forward, but with the County and cities still at a 50/50 balance of power, the County has the ability to block any potential legislation the cities might want to initiate.

The Municipal League recommends voting YES on this measure Amendment 3.  While the balance of power on the regional committees remains basically unchanged with Amendment 3, we conclude that the measure represents a small step forward for regional policymaking.  The regional policy committees receive some additional ability to influence the regional agenda and to initiate proposals for Council consideration.

Amendment 4: Qualifications of Elected Officials (Proposed by the Charter Review Commission)

Shall Section 630 of the King County Charter be amended to authorize the County Council to establish additional qualifications for separately elected officials who head executive departments?

Summary:

The County Assessor and the Sheriff are separately elected officials who head executive departments in King County government.  On this ballot, voters are also being asked to make the Elections Director a separate elected position.  Amendment 4 would give the County Council the ability to set additional qualifications for these positions, such as professional qualifications to be met by the candidates.

Arguments Pro:

• With the increasing conversion of appointed professional positions to elective offices, there is a concern that important executive functions of government could be mismanaged if held by poorly qualified office holders.  This measure would allow professional qualifications to be added to the necessary requirements for these positions.

Arguments Con:

• The additional of qualifications for separately elected officials tends to negate the intent of separating these positions from the control of the executive and legislative branches.

• The County Assessor and County Sheriff in King County, the County Auditor in other counties and the Secretary of State are independently elected executive positions and voters have done a good job of electing qualified individuals without the need for additional qualification.

• The enactment of such additional qualifications, if imposed once candidates have declared for an office, could be misused to interfere with a race by disqualifying a candidate or favoring one candidate over another.

• Enforcement and interpretation of qualifications on candidates would be left to County staff or might end in the courts.

• The amendment is poorly conceived as there is no provision for enforcing and interpreting Council-enacted qualifications in individual cases.

The Municipal League recommends voting NO on Amendment 4.  While the Municipal League opposes the creation of new, separately elected positions for professional executive functions, voters have been approving their conversion.  Thus the voters should decide the qualification of individuals running for these positions.  Allowing the County Council to add qualifications by ordinance from time to time negates the voters’ intent in making the positions elective.  Such additional qualifications might be difficult to enforce or to interpret and could end up in the courts.  If citizens wish to add qualifications to any elective positions, they should do so by adding them to the Charter.

Amendment 5:  Forecast Council and Office of Economic and Financial Analysis (Proposed by the King County Council)

Shall the King County Charter be amended to require the establishment of the forecast council and the office of economic and financial analysis?

Summary:

County economic forecasts currently are prepared by the Executive’s budget office.  Amendment 5 would create a new joint executive-legislative Forecast Council and Office of Economic and Financial Analysis.  The Forecast Council would consist of the Executive, two County Council members and a County employee with knowledge of the budgeting and financial management practices of the county to be appointed by the Executive.  The Forecast Council would hire a Chief County Economist.  The Executive would be required to use the forecasts of the Forecast Council in proposed budgets.

Arguments Pro:

• Amendment 5 takes the economic forecasting function out of the Executive’s office where its revenue forecasts cannot be easily reviewed and independently vetted, and places the function in a joint executive-legislative body.

• The model for the County Forecast Council is based upon the State’s Economic Forecast Council which has existed as a joint executive-legislative body since 1984 and has always been viewed as providing credible, professional and independent forecasts.

• The proposed measure will ensure greater credibility and improved oversight of the critical revenue forecasting function.

Arguments Con:

• The creation of this new entity is unnecessary and simply part of the ongoing power struggle between the executive and legislative branches of government.

• The creation of the new office would create unnecessary costs for County government.

The Municipal League recommends voting YES on this measure Amendment 5.  Amendment 5 to create a joint executive-legislative Forecast Council which selects the Chief Economist and oversees a new Office of Economic and Financial Analysis is a measure that will improve communication and cooperation between the Executive and Legislative branches of county government and provide greater confidence in revenue forecasts.

Amendment 6:  Budget Deadlines (Proposed by the Charter Review Commission)

Shall Sections 410 and 420 of the King County Charter be amended to impose deadlines that are twenty days earlier than existing deadlines for County agencies to submit budget information to the County Executive and for the County Executive to present a proposed budget to the County Council?

Arguments Pro:

• As County budgets become increasingly complicated and as the County is moving toward a biennial budget process, it is important that adequate time be allowed for detailed review and consideration of the budget.

• This is a housekeeping measure that ensures a more thorough budget review and deliberation.

Arguments Con:

The measure unnecessarily adds time to the budget process and creates opportunities for mischief that a shorter timeline tends to limit.

The Municipal League recommends voting YES on this measure Amendment 6.  We concur with the County Council and the Charter Review Commission that additional time for review and consideration of the budget details will allow a more thorough and deliberate process for examining and adopting the budget.

Amendment 7: Amending the Charter by Initiative (Proposed by the Charter Review Commission)

Shall the King County Charter Section 800 be amended to establish a process and signature threshold for amendments to the King County Charter by citizen initiative?

Summary:

Like the U.S. Constitution for the nation and the Washington State Constitution for the state, the King County Charter is the foundational document for the County and establishes the basic role and function of County government.  As such, it was deliberately designed to be difficult to amend.  The King County Home Rule Charter adopted in 1969 required a simple majority Council vote followed by a vote of the people to adopt Charter amendments.  Citizen initiatives to amend the Charter were not allowed.

In 2003 the State Supreme Court ruled that the County Charter could be amended by citizen initiative.  It set in place a two-step process that has been used just twice (initiative 25 in 2007 and Initiative 26 in 2008.)  Amendment 7 would streamline the two-step process to a single step and raise the threshold of signatures required from 10% to 20% of the votes cast in the most recent County Executive’s race.

Arguments Pro:

• The streamlined single-step process for amending the Charter is a considerable improvement over a process that has been laborious and confusing to voters.

• Charter amendments should have substantive support of the citizens to make it onto the ballot and thus a higher threshold of 20% is appropriate.  This is especially true in the current environment when many initiatives reach the ballot through the use of paid signature gatherers.

• The 20% signature threshold is based on the most recent County Executive’s race, a lower threshold than if it were based on a statewide or national election year.

Arguments Con:

• Raising the signature threshold from 10% to 20% makes it harder for citizens to make their voice heard in Charter matters and thus runs counter to the intent of the Supreme Court in allowing citizen charter amendments.

• Changing from a two-step to a one-step voting process for charter amendments makes it easier for ill-considered measures to make it onto the ballot.

• The Charter Review Commission process already exists to receive citizen input and develop thoughtful and well-considered charter amendments.

The Municipal League recommends voting YES on this measure Amendment 7.  The current two-step process for bringing citizen-based Charter amendments is expensive and confusing.  We support the streamlined single-step approach that Amendment 7 proposes.  If citizen initiatives are permitted to amend the County Charter -- as the Supreme Court has said they are -- then the process should be straightforward.  We also concur with the higher 20% signature threshold that is reasonable in light of the lower voter turnout numbers in years when the County Executive is on the ballot.

Amendment 8:  Non-Partisan County Council, Executive and Assessor (Initiative 26)

Shall the King County Charter be amended to make the offices of King County Executive, King County Assessor and King County Council nonpartisan, and to establish the nonpartisan selection of districting committee members?

Summary:

Similar to Amendment 1, Amendment 8 is the result of the two-step citizen initiative process to amend the County Charter.  On the August 2008 ballot, voters were given two options to amend the Charter:  one proposed by citizen initiative, to make County government non-partisan, and the second, an alternative placed on the ballot by the County Council, to make party designations a stated preference only.  The Municipal League supported the first option in August because it has long been the League’s position that King County citizens should have the opportunity to choose whether they wish a partisan or non-partisan County government.  That citizen-initiated option is now before voters on the November ballot.

Arguments Pro:

• Voter choice would be improved because voters could select from all candidates rather than being limited to those nominated by the parties.

• There would be more competition, as candidates in the current system generally have little chance if challenging incumbents of their own party.  County Council members often run unopposed, especially in districts that lean toward one party or the other.

• A partisan lens on issues often puts pressure on elected officials to move to extremes on issues to respond to the most active voices in their party base rather than work toward the middle in seeking solutions to problems.

• County government deals with many of the same local services that municipal government does: public safety, roads, parks and utilities.  These issues are not partisan.

• A nonpartisan County government would be able to build stronger partnerships with city councils, water, sewer, fire, hospital and other districts, all of which are nonpartisan.

• Council caucuses and voting blocs sometimes lead to inappropriately partisan positions on issues rather than ensuring representation of true district and constituent interests. 

• The “Top Two” primary system is not yet settled law in Washington.  If it should be overturned, the nonpartisan election method would ensure voters continue to have more choices.

• The initiative has the overwhelming support of city officials who feel shut out from the County Council’s partisan style of policy making.

• I-26 does not prohibit candidates from discussing their party affiliation if they wish to.

Arguments Con:

• Parties serve a useful function in identifying, screening and training candidates which would be more difficult to achieve if their influence on the nominations process is reduced as I-26 proposes.

• Partisan designations help voters identify a candidate’s political philosophy, an important function especially when voters are less informed or have limited time to learn about a candidate prior to voting.

• Unlike cities, County government deals with regional issues like courts, jails, transit and countywide land use policy, which affect citizens throughout the county.  Much like in state or national government, party identification helps citizens understand candidates’ priorities.

• Since 1990 the Council has voted on a straight party line only seven times.  Partisanship is just not an issue in the functioning of County government.

• The Council has addressed the perception of unfairness that arises when the majority party controls all of the committees by rewriting the policy and allowing minority party members to have committee chair roles.

• King County government is not broken.  The initiative is a solution in search of a problem.

• Candidates who are reluctant to affiliate with a party are free under the current Charter to run as independents.

The Municipal League recommends voting YES on this measure Amendment 8.  The Municipal League in August 2008 took a position supporting the citizens’ right to vote on the matter of a non-partisan county government. Having argued for many years that the citizens of King County should be allowed to vote on whether they prefer a partisan or non-partisan County government, we are pleased that voters have that opportunity this November.

We support the change to non-partisan government, because it will give voters more choice at election time and it will remove the partisan lens that often inappropriately colors decision-making on largely local issues.  Further, we are hopeful that a non-partisan County government will over time develop better relations with the cities and with the many special districts in King County.