charter amendments

There are a few strange King County Charter Amendments on the ballot for our consideration in the Nov. 4th general election. All quotes used below come from explanatory statements and statements in favor for the Amendments, printed in the Voters Pamphlet.

Amendment 3, Regional Committees: seeks to replace the Democratic principle of one person, one vote with a two-fer. This Amendment will reduce the number of County Council members serving on regional committees from six members to three members while maintaining the same number of votes for the County Council.

This means that each council member on a regional committee will now have two votes rather than one. They propose to do this so that "balance" will continue. Council members work would be reduced, "but their voting power would be undiminished." Voting power, indeed.

Amendment 4, Additional Qualifications for Elected Officials: wants to amend the county charter so that the offices of assessor, elections director (if it becomes an elected office - see Amendment 1), and sheriff have a set of additional qualifications beyond the current age and residency requirements. These are the same qualifications for membership on the County Council.

This Amendment presupposes that King County Council members have the qualifications to decide who is qualified to be assessor or sheriff as well as what those qualifications should be. "It makes sense to spell out specific qualifications for officials administering special technical jobs." Indeed it does.

It also makes sense to spell out specific qualifications for people who administer such things as the county budget (currently in severe deficit) and supervise county administrators and technical jobs. Yet, this amendment does not propose to set out any of these specific qualifications for people choosing to run for positions on the County Council or as county executive. Setting qualifications for these jobs would also ensure the public interest is protected.

Amendment 5, Establishing Forecast Council and Office of Economic and Financial Analysis: would allow the King County Council to establish a means by which information about fiscal responsibility could be communicated to Council members. "The forecast council would be composed of the county executive, two County Council members, and a(n) (appointed) county employee who has knowledge of the budgeting and financial practices of the county." Well, one of four people on the forecast council who knows anything about economics isn't so bad, is it?

In the complete text for this amendment we learn that "membership on this council will not be subject to confirmation." Also that they plan on hiring a whole bunch of officers, assistants, and other full-time and part-time employees. Maybe they can pick up some people from the hundreds that face layoff due to the county's budget deficit?

The Council would have us amend the County Charter to require the assessor and sheriff be vetted by the County Council. But this amendment would have non- or under-qualified council members forecast economic trends? Does this make sense?

At least the Office of Economic and Financial Analysis will be lead by a "chief economist." Hopefully this person will be qualified too although none of these qualifications are stated.

I plan to vote "No" on these three amendments. Neither is well-conceived nor do they reflect the best interests of the residents of King County.

Peter Stekel

Alki