Snohomish County voters will consider a half-dozen ideas that would change how county government operates.
If voters agree with each of the six measures, the county charter will be amended to allow two-year county budgets, more independent review of salaries of top elected officials and greater veto power for the county executive.
Also, election rules would be tweaked, the county performance auditor will answer to the County Council, and the County Council will have to work better with the public.
Voters could approve some or none of the measures.
The ideas came from a 15-member charter review committee elected in 2005. The panel is convened every 10 years to consider charter changes. After reviewing dozens of ideas, the group settled on six to be sent to voters.
Eric Earling supports all six measures, and helped write five of the statements in support of each in the voters’ guide. He was vice-chairman of the Charter Review Commission and is deputy regional representative for the U.S. Secretary of Education.
“I think all six are important improvements to the county charter,” he said.
Two-year budgets save staff time, Earling said. Greater veto power for the county executive will allow for better legislation, he said.
And the performance auditor should be controlled by the County Council, Earling said. The position investigates and reviews the accountability of county programs and spending, and legislative branches across the country control that position, he said.
Jim Kenny of Everett, who also served on the charter panel, opposes three of the measures. He doesn’t support giving County Council oversight of the performance auditor. Nor does he want to give more veto power to the county executive.
Lastly, two-year budgets is a bad idea, he said.
“They have the time and the staff to look at the budget every year,” said Kenny, a Seattle criminal prosecutor. “What is more important than looking at the budget every year and tracking where money goes and how it’s spent?”
He said the charter commission found no problems that require changing who supervises the performance auditor or granting more veto power to the county executive.
County attorneys wrote short synopses of each measure, but the full text of each proposal isn’t included in voters guides.
Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger said state law doesn’t require it, and the information is available for voters on the county Web site at www.snoco.org.
“I think they (voters) have more than enough information when they read the explanatory statement,” he said. The county is following past practices that were first based on budget decisions, he said.
Still, “99 percent of voters wouldn’t read the full text anyway because that gobbledygook doesn’t mean any thing to them,” he said, referring to such text as underlined and struck-out phrases of the charter changes.
The county charter amendments are:
Prop. 1: Salary commission. An existing appointed commission will have complete power to approve salary increases every two years for the top elected county officials, including County Council, county executive, sheriff and other positions. In 2005, the County Council amended the panel’s recommendation and County Executive Aaron Reardon vetoed all raises.
Prop. 2: Two-year budgets. If approved, the county charter would allow two-year budgets. Supporters said it would save staff time. Opponents said there’s no guarantee that time will be saved.
Prop. 3: Section veto. The county executive would be given power to veto sections of County Council-approved ordinances, instead of entire ordinances. Proponents said this tool would improve county legislation; opponents said it gives too much power to the executive. The County Council would retain the authority to override any veto with a super-majority vote.
Prop. 4: County Council procedures. The County Council would be required to improve public access to agendas, meeting minutes and voting records and allow public comments at meetings.
Prop. 5: Elections rules. The county charter would be updated to match state law on allowing minor parties on ballots and change rules for how to file county voter initiatives.
Prop. 6: Performance auditor oversight. If approved, the county performance auditor would leave the county Auditor’s office and be managed by the five-member County Council. Proponents say more independence is possible through the move; opponents said the position could be more easily swayed by political winds at the County Council.
Reporter Jeff Switzer: 425-339-3452 or jswitzer@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
