Home
Meeting Schedule
Agendas
Meeting Minutes
Commission Members
Commission Operations
Contact Us

 DRAFT Meeting Summary
Meeting 11 – August 14, 2003

Members:
Richard Derham
Mark Endresen
Dave Gering
Steve Goldblatt 
Arun Jhaveri
Sharon Maeda
Jim Montgomery
Bill Ptacek
Steve Williamson   

Consulting Team:
Berk & Associates, 206-324-8760
Marty Wine, Senior Associate
Brian Murphy, Associate

Council Staff:
David deCourcy, Council Chief of Staff, 296-0343
Scott White, Council Staff, 296-0324
Gennevie Cook, Committee Assistant, 205-5079

The Commission on Governance meeting was called to order at 2:06 p.m. in Room 4080, 40th Floor, Key Tower Building, 700 – 5th Avenue, Seattle, Washington by Co-Chair Steve Goldblatt.
Commission members present: Richard Bonewits, Richard Derham, Mark Endresen, Dave Gering, Steve Goldblatt, Sharon Maeda, Bill Ptacek, Kathleen Royer
Absent: Arun Jhaveri, Jim Montgomery, Steve Williamson

Guest Speakers: Christel Brunnenkant, League of Women Voters; Miriam Helgeland, League of Women Voters

Audience Members: Anthony Hemstad, City of Maple Valley for Suburban Cities Association; Rose Feliciano, Regional Affairs Coordinator, City of Seattle, Suzanne Dale-Estey, Office of the King County Executive; Kimberly Lockard, Councilmember Julia Patterson’s office.

1. Approval of July 31 Meeting Summary: Bill Ptacek moved, and Kathleen Royer seconded the approval of the July 31 minutes. The motion was unanimously approved.

2. Discussion with League of Women Voters
Guest speakers Miriam Helgeland and Christel Brunnenkant presented League positions to the Commission, focusing on regional government and the importance of coordination – used the Human Services Collaboration as an example. The League has official positions and decisions about positions are made by consensus voting across multiple meetings.

League positions relating to Governance Commission’s work:
• Citizens should be given a way to amend the County Charter – this has been a recommendation of every Charter Review Commission and never acted on.
• Voters should also be allowed to decide whether offices should be partisan or nonpartisan.
• Area wide administration of area wide functions
• Local administration of local functions
• Integration of services
• Stable and adequate funding for a coordinated continuum of services for children at risk
• A merit system
• A shortened ballot by
o Making jobs requiring technical skills appointive
o Jobs requiring representation should be elective

Q: Would nonpartisan offices, such as cities have, work better for King County? Or, as sometimes happens in Seattle, why couldn’t two Democrats run against each other in the primary?
A: The League has no position on favoring nonpartisan or partisan offices.
Q: Should the sheriff’s position be elected?
A: The League was disappointed that the sheriff’s position is elective; we believe that positions requiring technical expertise be appointive.

The Commission and speakers discussed the issue of overlapping governmental jurisdictions and whether some types of junior taxing districts, such as fire and utility districts, compete for territory. Whether the Commission should take on the issue of consolidation of like special districts, and whether there would be savings. Areas where it might be advantageous include central functions, information technology, “digging up the street only one time,” lower competition for area of coverage, but it’s no guarantee of coordination.
Q: About the library system – do annexed cities feel that they operate better on their own, or better through a system?
A: Most recognize the benefits of a system because of transactional, transition and/or startup costs. Taking up this issue of consolidation might create more grief than it solves.

Other positions the League has taken (state and nationally):
Solid waste: measures to achieve waste reduction, energy recovery, landfill issues. The Commission discussed how our system works now, with private garbage haulers and recycling/composting program.

Janet Anderson, also a League member, has asked to present about proportional representation, specifically a method of election called Choice Voting, which was developed as part of the League of Women Voters’ three year-long statewide study of election methods. One of the conclusions of that study was that for representative bodies like the County Council, a proportional election method best serves the voters.

Q: Has the League looked at annexations and incorporations?
A: No.
Q: Please clarify what is meant by merit system?
A: The League will get back to the Commission regarding this.

Selection of judges: the League believes there should be changes to the judicial selection system to increase awareness. Discussion of other state examples such as New York and Missouri, where appointees must run in the next election to be retained (an endorsement election).

3. Discussion Regarding Follow-up of Unincorporated Area Councils

Dick Bonewits provided a handout entitled “Discussion on Rural Areas.” Because UAC residents live in a rural area, King County is our only local government. “Hot button issues” include law enforcement, annexation, roads, taxation, land use and zoning, code enforcement, property rights, fire, safety and emergency services, county governance.

Residents of this area do not want annexation. The BATF did not recommend annexation for rural areas. The Maple Valley UAC’s annual survey effort highlighted the following findings:
• There are four key reasons residents gave in response to the question “why do you live here?”
o Privacy or solitude
o To enjoy beauty of forests
o To have relative freedom on your land
o For low levels of noise and traffic congestion
• What are priorities for government supplied services?
o Increasing general road capacity
o Improving schools curriculum and teachers
o Law enforcement, prosecution, jails
• What are views on taxation?
o Would like to be more convinced that government is making effective use of its existing revenues before you authorize increases.

Discussion about what it means to be disenfranchised and how to convince voters that their investment is being used wisely; perhaps a citizen education effort to help people read their tax bill would provide meaningful information. When a taxpayer pays $5,000 in property taxes, they ask, “what did I get for the $5,000?”

4. Follow-up from July 31 Exercise: Questions about County Departments and Services and Division of Responsibilities among King County Jurisdictions

At the July 7 meeting, Commission members highlighted questions about County departments – who are they, what do they do? Some answers are in a handout provided by Marty entitled “Follow-up from July 31 Exercise.” Shaded areas on this handout are still being researched. The purpose of the document was to help the group discussion future directions for recommendations. The Commission should focus on what information is needed to answer the Phase 1 question of what services the County should provide.

Services that were discussed/reviewed:
• Community and Human Services – a host of smaller, state- or federally-funded programs (Developmental Disabilities, Veteran’s Programs)
• Employee salary and benefits - Marty will research expenditures in 2002.
• Voting and elections costs
• Arts and Historic Preservation is now managed by the Cultural Development Authority and is non-general-fund supported.
• Parks levy lid – although temporary now, will it become permanent?
• Q: Are full costs being budgeted – retirement, depreciation? A: Generally, in enterprise funds, depreciation is.
• Airport – is it really a core service of government, is it really needed, could the Port do it? Is there a transaction cost/risk of transferring it? What are the income and expenses for the airport? Is it possible to see how much each tenant is contributing? What do other counties do? (Fort Worth, Texas was cited as an example.) What constituencies would be upset if the airport were transferred to the Port? (Marty will research this and come back to the Commission.)
• What is the County fair budget and does it break even?
• Criminal justice and its increasing share of the general fund
• Look at what Pierce County has done regarding public health and contract out services.

Discussion then turned to a document titled “Phase 1 ‘Survey’ Results: Summary Draft.” This was a list of services generally provided by counties and Commission members were asked to identify services the County should provide by classifying them as “yes,” “no,” or “by contract or different service model.” Marty reiterated that the middle column of the survey, “different service model,” represents Phase 2 work and that any services with a “no” would be early guidance that the Commission might suggest the County not provide these services. The Commission focused on the “no” column and came to consensus that few of the services they still had questions about were worth singling out as a service the County should stop providing, and there is a need to be careful when delivering this message.

At the next meeting, the Commission will continue to discuss areas where there are questions about the County’s role. For example, the BATF had questions regarding the County’s role in:
1. Regional transportation
2. District court
3. Economic development

In addition, Commission members felt they needed to learn more about three areas where they could potentially make a recommendation that King County should not provide services: Airport (Boeing Field), County Fair, Boundary Review Board. At the August 28 meeting, a motion should be prepared answering the Phase 1 question so the Commission can vote on it.

Marty asked the Commission members to read the Overview of King County’s Criminal Justice System which was provided in the meeting materials. The next Commission meeting will include guest speakers for this topic.

5. Draft Problem Statement Review

The group discussed this draft as something that could be presented at a public meeting in late September. Commission members are asked to send revisions to Marty before the next meeting and expect to adopt it at the August 28 meeting.

Changes included revisions to the statement about management-labor relations statement to read “make up” instead of “take up.” The second bulleted item was moved to the first, and members will send Marty edits to the last two bullets.

6. Communications Strategy

Dave Gering moved to approve the Communications Strategy, and Mark Endresen seconded the approval of the Communications Strategy. The motion was unanimously approved.

August 28 meeting overview: The next meeting is in the Wells Fargo Building at 999 - Third Avenue on the 44th Floor, 2-5 p.m. This is the meeting place for all future Governance Commission meetings.

7. Adjourn