Pierce County Charter Amendments
I’ve had a number of folks reach out to ask questions about the three proposed amendments to the Charter. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I typically don’t like the Council putting amendments to the Charter on the ballot itself, especially so soon after the Charter Review Commission met.
In this case, there’s reason for each of them and I’m asking you to say “yes” three times for these good government proposals. The News Tribune agrees!
Proposed Charter Amendment #48 — Biennial (Two-Year) County Budget Cycle
Of the three, this is the only one that I would say makes a substantive policy change rather than a technical correction. But it’s good substance. The best!
Biennial budgeting has been something of a hobbyhorse of mine for a while. Basically it’s exactly what it sounds like. Instead of passing a budget for one year, you budget for two. The State, Tacoma, King County, and numerous other jurisdictions all do the same.
Why?
- It allows for more strategic budgeting. By stretching out the cycle you can smooth revenue expectations and average costs more appropriately.
- The annual cycle consumes more staff and Council time leaving less for more in-depth discussions. We cover well trod ground each year which leaves us unable to focus on a particular program or department.
- We still retain the flexibility of passing supplemental budgets when things change, as already happens at least once or twice per year, so there’s no need to worry that we’ll be unable to respond to emergent needs.
We actually passed a similar change in Gig Harbor when I was on the City Council. Alas, after years of trying, it wasn’t passed until right when I was leaving so I never got the chance to work on one.
So why is the amendment necessary? Currently the Charter reads as follows:
At least 100 days prior to the end of each fiscal year, the Executive shall present to the Council a complete budget and budget message, proposed current expense, road fund, and capital budget appropriation ordinances, and proposed tax and revenue ordinances necessary to raise sufficient revenues to balance the budget. At least 30 days prior to the end of the fiscal year, the Council shall adopt appropriation, tax and revenue ordinances for the next fiscal year.
It was my belief that this language already allows for biennial budgets. It just says we have to pass one each year. It doesn’t say it can’t be supplemental. Even still, the Executive’s and Prosecutor’s staff felt it would be most transparent and clean to make this change. I was persuaded by their argument which is why it’s on the ballot with the unanimous support of the Council and Executive.
Proposed Charter Amendment #49 — Procedures for Initiative, Referendum, Agenda and Charter Amendment Petitions
This amendment is essentially a series of technical corrections. During a referendum effort a few years ago, it was discovered that there were inconsistencies in the rules both internal to Pierce County’s Charter, and with the State. Most of it has to do with timelines and what days count (business or calendar).
The outcome is that the rules will be more predictable and useful for citizens when they see to use referenda. I think these changes better meet the intent of this section so I’d urge you to vote yes.
Proposed Charter Amendment #50 — Filling Vacancies in Elective Offices
The State Constitution requires that political parties have the opportunity to recommend three qualified candidates to make an appointment filling a vacancy to that office. The party that held the seat holds a meeting where their Precinct Committee Officers select three names to go to the county legislative authority (in our case, the Council).
That all works fine, but a few years ago voters decided to make a few elected offices (Auditor, Assessor, and Sheriff) non-partisan. That makes a ton of sense since their duties are more professional rather than political. But what happens if one of their seats becomes vacant? There was no party to make the recommendation so according to the current rules under the Charter, so there wasn’t a way for the Council to initiate the process.
Thankfully, voters last year approved Amendment 46 for nonpartisan offices. It allows us to convene a committee to make recommendation for a sensible substitute. We use a similar process for judicial appointments and I think it’s worked well.
This amendment would allow us to use the same process when a partisan office becomes vacant, but the person who held it didn’t come from a major party. The reason? If you run as an independent or another minor party, there are no PCOs to make a selection. This is a real possibility as one of the candidates for Prosecutor filed as a “non-partisan.” Our primary rules do not require a person to select a major party and, in fact, don’t give them a direct role in selecting who goes to the final ballot. Voters do that.
The long and the short of it is that we would solve the problem by using the same process voters have already approved.
