As exciting reading material, they rank right up there with your typical insurance policy. But the six proposed amendments to the Snohomish County Charter that appear on the front of this year’s general election ballot need your attention. Think of it as doing your bit for better government.
The charter is essentially the county’s constitution, and it’s subject to review every 10 years. A 15-member commission, elected by voters last year, considered dozens of potential changes, rejected most of them and agreed on six for you to consider. These proposals are modest and sensible, and we recommend approval of all of them.
Three are easy calls that have no organized opposition: proposals to create an independent commission to set the salaries of county elected officials; to improve public access to the work of the County Council; and to bring county election rules in line with state law.
The other three are less cut and dried, but make important improvements. Complete statements for and against them appear on the county voters’ pamphlet that will be arriving in voters’ mailboxes later this week. Here’s why we think they should be approved:
Proposition 2 gives the County Council the option of adopting two-year (biennial) budgets. Two-year budgets tend to be more efficient because department leaders spend less time in the budgeting process and more time tending to their main job. A two-year cycle also can improve long-term planning by allowing time for budget writers to better understand how well current programs are working.
Proposition 3 would allow the county executive to veto sections of legislation passed by the county council. Currently, an executive veto applies to an entire ordinance. We believe the option of a section veto will encourage more thoughtful negotiations between the council and executive before ordinances are passed.
Two other points are worth noting: the council retains its ability to override any veto with a supermajority, and three current council members – Republicans Gary Nelson and John Koster and Democrat Dave Somers – joined Executive Aaron Reardon in supporting this change. That means a bipartisan majority of the current council isn’t worried that too much power will shift from the council to the executive.
Proposition 6 would have the county performance auditor, which was created during the 1996 charter review process and reports to the county auditor, report instead to the County Council. Current county Auditor Bob Terwilliger supports the change, arguing that because the purpose of performance audits is to assess the effectiveness of budgeted programs, it should be part of the branch with ultimate budget responsibility – the County Council. We agree.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
