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

 DRAFT Meeting Summary
Meeting 22– January 22, 2004

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

Consulting Team:
Berk & Associates, 206-324-8760
Bonnie Berk, President
Marty Wine, Senior Associate
Cherienne Tibbetts, Associate

Council Staff:
Scott White, Council Staff, 296-0324

The Commission on Governance meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m., Conference Room 6A, 6th Floor, Exchange Building, 821 – 2nd Avenue, Seattle, WA (cross streets: Marion, Columbia).

Commission members present: Richard Bonewits, Richard Derham, Mark Endresen, Dave Gering, Steve Goldblatt, Arun Jhaveri, Sharon Maeda, Jim Montgomery

Absent: Bill Ptacek, Kathleen Royer, Steve Williamson

Audience Members: Charlie Bush, City Manager’s Office, City of Bellevue; Rose Feliciano, Regional Affairs Coordinator, City of Seattle; Christel Brunnenkant and Miriam Helgeland, League of Women Voters; Anthony Hemstad, Suburban Cities Association, City of Maple Valley; Dave Regnier, King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office; Keith Ervin, Seattle Times; Patrick Vanzo, King County Department of Community and Human Services, Janet Anderson, Washington Citizens for Proportional Representation; Ryan Bayne, King County Executive’s Office.

1. Approval of December 4 Meeting Summary

Jim Montgomery moved approval of meeting summary, Mark Endresen seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.

2. Presenter: Steve Sarkozy

Why we’ve asked Steve to come:

• Staff chair of the Ramsey County Local Government Services Study Commission, addressing what services should be provided and how, and government consolidation. (Similar to Governance Commission scope). Later a member of Ramsey County Charter Commission;
  • What were the challenges of that effort and primary issues of debate?
• Transition from that to what the regional intergovernmental picture is like and what it's like from one City's perspective to work with King County.
• If time: Specific comments/observations about our scope: whether County officials should be elected or appointed, partisan or non-partisan, an optimal size for Council as the legislative branch?

1991 Ramsey County Local Government Services Study Commission studying delivery of service, looking at government organization at the state, regional county, and city level – look at functional consolidation for more efficient service delivery. Looked at redistribution of responsibilities, merger. 25 commissioners appointed by the governor. Charge to the members: reformulate public safety, courts, health services, library services, courts. What came from the effort was a functional consolidation and redistribution of responsibilities. Road maintenance was transferred from state to county to cities. Consolidated police services. At the same time of the study, Ramsey County transitioned to City Manger form of government. Recommendations came about regarding legislative mandate, merger of health department, and collaboration on contracting. What we learned from that effort that organizations were very different as a result of the governance models - governance does matter to productivity and outcomes, and form of government does matter. There are different ways of dealing with issues, and we were precluded from doing some things because of the governance structure. Our elected vs. appointed or strong mayor/manager forms affected our recommendations. The Commission helped generate operational efficiencies.

Q: How were recommendations implemented and what form did they take?

A: Some of our recommendations were to the state legislature and became legislative mandates; others were to the County Commission and City of St. Paul. Informally, we were informally able through work groups to create stronger collaborative efforts (such as partnerships for public works equipment, rightsizing organizations, merger of health departments). The list of collaborative efforts was already very long in Minnesota with tension between levels of government. There was a fractured partisan system at the County and at the suburban level, a focus on business - a more collegial, professional environment, less emphasis on partisan politics. What the study did was to focus on constituents and residents as a common element.

About Ramsey County: Twin Cities SMSA – 7 counties comparable in population size to our 3 in Puget Sound region. Population in Ramsey County 600,000. Similarities in suburban areas. Effort was prompted by League of Women Voters and Chambers of Commerce. The County was chosen because of a strong ethic to find efficiencies in government. A desire to extend the effort county-wide.

Q: Was the political landscape different?

A: Yes, the cultures were different. Less aversion to government, strong feeling that governance can produce. There seems to be tension in this region.

Q: Can you tell us about one topic where governance mattered?

A: The culture of the organization matters a lot. Driven largely by governance structure. In Twin Cities, a culture of collaboration with long list of cooperative efforts between cities and counties. There is less of that here. Seems to be tension between levels of governments here - fractured, partisan county discussion of a very political nature and the suburban mindset is more of a business orientation (at the risk of making gross generalizations). The way we operate politically has some limitations on our ability to collaborate, with collegial working relationship that was professional and worked well. Operational benefits to residents.

Q: What percentage of employees of the county are represented and how many collective bargaining units does the county have?

A: The county has 17 collective bargaining units. There are 3,000 unrepresented and 10,000 represented employees. The County does not have similar "Metro" duties for wastewater and bus service as King County.

Q: Is it typical to see so much competition among governments? I see competition for resources but not competition to deliver services.

A: No. The partisan environment was before my time in MN, but in my experience there is a lot more interpersonal competition in a partisan environment. The purpose of our commission was to increase accountability between the cities and county to reduce disagreement about responsibilities.

Q: What was the makeup of the Council before the transition and how did it change? Was there a need for transitional phase? If our group suggests a Council-Manager form, how could the transition happen?

A: I don't have a great deal of experience in that transitional phase - often phasing can carry an organization through 2 or more changes rather than 1 revolutionary change.

The Ramsey County Commission was implemented over 2-3 years. Commission was successful and led to collaborative efforts at city and county levels. Overall a positive experience. I later served on the Ramsey County Charter Commission, established to monitor the workings of the form of government. They can put new governance changes on the ballot. A high degree of public involvement was needed and continues today. What I learned was how much corporate culture is different at each level of government. The structure does influence the way we work and levels of productivity and outcomes of public service. This is fundamental and translates to King County - partisan nature of King County and highly charged political nature of County business can make it difficult to communicate and keep a consistent focus in city-county relations.

Q: Can you identify areas of service delivery where this tension exists? Where are the opportunities to reorganize service delivery?

A: There is a more intense focus on individual or positional issues. In the partisan environment of the County it is difficult to communicate and keep a consistent focus. We are only looking at whether annexations are financially viable but there’s another question about what serves residents best. Unless we address that more broadly we’ll be myopic about dealing with these issues. I also look at departmental issues (police, sheriff, social services, courts) and how to provide the best range of services.

Q: How should the County be handling small pockets of unincorporated areas? Did you have the issue of service delivery and annexation of these areas in Ramsey County? Even if voters decide they want to annex, how to get cities on board?

A: There was an effort to require incorporation to existing areas, successful except for one pocket. The County restricted services to the areas. Neighboring counties did not do this and had a harder time providing services. The focus has always been on the level of providing service – examined the actual and appropriate level of service for the sheriff in unincorporated areas. Same analysis on the city size. There are tradeoffs – delivery models for service to the customer, not the effect on the entity. Cities gave up specialized services. Some patrol functions at the local level were given up by the sheriff.

Q: Do you have observations about what the King County governance structure look like?

A: I won't directly answer this. I have committed my career to a professional manager of government for a reason. In my experience, a functional system is the professional manager form of government as a corporate body, as apolitical as possible. A nonpartisan, alternating terms, a small legislative body that can be responsive. For county, makes sense to split between at-large and by-district so you have both geographic and at-large representation.

Q: What about disparities between urban and rural areas? Revenues, services, per capita tax expense? How to make that part of the equation? Tell us about Eastgate and annexing that area..

A: In Minnesota, we recognized that it is the Legislature’s role to deal with equalization and standardization. It was in the interest of the County to step away from these services. The County reduced policing services, surcharged calls, and relied on special taxing districts to fund services.

Q: Do you see opportunities for the county and cities here to exchange services?

A: I have not looked at this in depth. We are trying at the local level to reduce our costs and collaborate more.

One of the biggest differences between Council-Manager form of government and strong Executive form of government is the tension among the two branches makes it difficult to move issues ahead as a department head. The Council sets policy and the executive carries it out, but it's easier and more productive as a department director when both branches are headed in the same direction. The focus is clearly on the focus and the citizen and a multi-year strategy can be communicated throughout the organization. There is also a more homogeneous culture than all of King County.

Presenter: Bob Drewel

Bob Drewel, Executive Director, Puget Sound Regional Council since December 2003. Previously Snohomish County Executive for 12 years, President and CEO of Everett Community College.

Why we’ve asked Bob to come:

• His observations in this region and elsewhere: governance models that work well or not, and wh
• Specific comments/observations about: whether County officials should be elected or appointed, partisan or non-partisan, an optimal size for Council as the legislative branch?
• At last meeting we heard from ICMA about benefits of an appointed professional manager. Comment on advantages/disadvantages of this form compared elected executive form?

Bob Drewel, Executive Director of PSRC and speaking on his own behalf. Previously Snohomish County Executive.

Snohomish has population 660,000 with 5 council members and a host of elected officials. 5 districts divided by population base. Will focus heavily on criminal justice - Snohomish, 70% of budget; Pierce, 80%. I was grateful to see recommendations that would break the cycle - the more investments you make in law enforcement and courts and jails shows there is no economies of scale in the criminal justice system.

In Snohomish, we increased criminal justice budget with no decrease in health budget. Size of the council - I will not comment on. What we did in Snohomish (note that this is a size and scope discussion) was regularly meet with elected officials. We included the elected sheriff and other elected officials in the format. Treasurer, Assessor, Clerk, Prosecuting Attorney, Auditor, Judges were included. This is a question of style and how proactive to be in running the government. Even though they are non-partisan offices, the only control the Executive has is budgetary. It all worked there because we made it work. Need a structure. Bringing the business of business to the business of government is difficult because it's not a business. Will that work everywhere? No.

Partisan versus non-partisan - Snohomish shifted from partisan to non-partisan an nothing changed from one form to the other. Prosecutor should be partisan, so should executive, council. It doesn't make sense to have a county this size and not have an elected executive as a check and balance on the legislative branch. What's needed is a customer service ethic - no one worries about the partisan label. Two of the council districts in Snohomish were very rural. We worked hard for district-elected representatives to meet needs of residents through committee assignments. The practice should be what makes sense to serve the residents.

Q: We have debated whether an elected or appointed Executive would be preferred. Could you comment?

A: The Executive should be elected because of checks and balances – separation of powers is needed for democracy to function. It would not be appropriate to consider a commission form of government, especially because of criminal justice issues. Need to have one person responsible for delivery of services answering to everyone in the County.

Q: What kind of value added support is provided in this form of government?

A: Management of issues. Budget run weekly, watch day-to-day operations, monitoring budget and expenditure patterns. It was clear who made policy - the Council - in Snohomish - and it was the Executive's role to carry out within the resources provided. Elected official and district driven.

Q: As a county-wide elected official, was there any time you felt compelled to take issues out to the county? Is your ability enhanced or hurt in a County manager form of government?

A: That is something one couldn't do as manager - the regionality of how the government is structured suggests elected executives can have a leadership role. Examples: methamphetamine lab imitative, the Boeing 7E7 work, and Sound Transit. Some done without the support of the Council. There should be some attention paid to whether elected or appointed officials are making decisions.

Q: How did you address disenfranchisement; what about areas that don't appear to be or feel well represented, such as the rural areas?

A: The County is only as good as the people who participate and people who are running it and how they communicate and work together. In principle, the government should not create silos that are driven by the politics of the moment. Create competence and predictability. The transportation issue was one split between urban and rural areas in Snohomish County, home ownership is another. There was a group called Snohomish County Tomorrow that had representation from all areas of the County. The group met regularly and discussed land use, transportation, and other county-wide issues.

Q: What about the number of council members – what kind of committee structure did Snohomish have?

A: I don't know how King County is organized. We tried to create crossover so that issues informed one another (land use, transportation, criminal justice). In Snohomish we had 5 councilmembers and worked in committees, but on issues such as criminal justice, 2 members were the committee and all 5 members would attend.

Q: How can citizens learn more about what the County does? Many services will face deeper fiscal cuts in the future.

A: Counties are the most misunderstood governments. King County gets an amazing amount of services with its resources. You can't save your way into prosperity. Our problem is we can't keep providing all these services, but we also can't control what is ours. Education is the biggest challenge with the Commission's work and the County's charge. Beg and demand that the media pick up this story and your recommendations. King County should be displaying its services to people. Explain that 70 cents of every dollar are taken up before the County has any discretion to provide any services.

Q: We are also thinking about what would need to change at the state level. Do you have any ideas for us?

A: No hero votes. When Olympia sneezes, counties get a really bad cold. This is changing. State legislators must understand the service delivery implications of what they are doing. Hard to argue against hard time for armed crime and that consequences shouldn't exist for serious crimes.

Q: How many cities were in the County and how was the County-City relationship?

A: 19 cities. There is always dynamic tension between the County and cities. I had a monthly meeting with the cities and we worked on a lot of issues jointly. We made a point of sitting down with cities and asking "are our services working?" I created a "myth busters" group to dispel rumors as they circulated. PSRC recently did a survey showing that 80% of people in the region believe our governments should act more like a region.

Q: We have heard from other speakers that good leadership can help to make things work. How would you suggest we include that in our recommendations about structure? Please give examples.

A: It would be important to emphasize flexibility and lifting constraints that exist. For example, one of the main purposes of your report should be education. The Commission has the right focus in its criminal justice recommendations and should keep going in that direction.

Q: What about County interactions at the state level?

A: The state needs to build flexibility in to how counties work and a clear set of guidelines to allow the County to answer questions and have "on the ground" service delivery responsibilities. There was a 1993-94 law passed at the state level that forced or promoted regional relations.

Q: We have a choice about how bold to be with our recommendations. Could you advise us?

A: Probably err on the side of not offending, but the Commission must get a commitment that the work is shared, displayed, recognized for educational purposes and have an accountability trail so you know these issues stay in play. Also, there are hundreds of new elected officials and your report should go to them.

County Governance/Political Structure Discussion (Based on 10 of 11 members reporting)

Steps:

1. Check in - are the questions right and the criteria right? Anything to add?
2. Commit - do a "straw poll" based on first impressions including your reasons for thinking the way you do now.
3. Have facilitated dialogue
      a. What does the Commission think
      b. Where are you together or not/agree or disagree
      c. Where is more dialogue needed
      d. What are next steps and next meeting
   

Upcoming Meetings and Next Steps

At the next meeting, Marty and the drafting group will bring forward a draft structure of the report for review by the full Commission. Marty will also follow up with Scott White about reporting, the logistics of the report and what will be expected of the Commission as it completes its recommendations.

Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.