Home
Meeting
Schedule
Agendas
Meeting
Minutes
Commission
Members
Commission Operations
Contact
Us
June 6, 2003
Meeting Summary
Members Present: Richard Derham, Dave Gering, Arun Jhaveri, Jim Montgomery, Bill Ptacek
Members Excused:
Mark Endresen, Steve Goldblatt, Sharon Maeda, Steve Williams
Guests Present: Councilmember David Irons,
Metropolitan King County Council; Russ Carlsen, Legislative Aide,
Councilmember Kathy Lambert; Rich Feldman, King County Labor Council; Rose
Feliciano, Office of Intergovernmental Relations, City of Seattle; Anthony
Hemstad, Suburban Cities Association, City of Maple Valley;
1. Welcome and Introductions
Dave Gering welcomed the Commission members and the public to the meeting. Bonnie Berk introduced Brian Murphy, a member of the Berk & Associates who will be supporting the Commission with facilitation and research.
2. Status Reports
Scott White briefed the Commission on the following two issues:
1) Size of Council: An initiative has been filed by the union representing jail guards to reduce the number of Councilmembers from 13 to 9. Legal review of the proposed initiative has determined that only the Council may place amendments to the Charter on the ballot. The initiative may therefore be changed to direct the Council to act to reduce the number of Councilmembers.
2) Unincorporated Area Representatives: The Commission’s motion to add representatives of unincorporated King County to the Commission has received “favorable consideration” by Council. If approved, an amendment of Ordinance 14514 would be required. Concern was expressed at how long Council consideration might take, and Scott responded that the issue was on a “fast track process” and that he would have more to report at the next Commission meeting.
There was some discussion of sending a letter introducing the Commission’s scope of work and work plan to the Unincorporated Area Councils (UACs). It was decided that this should be done as part of a broad communications outreach. Such introduction made to a number of groups including the Suburban Cities Association, League of Women Voters, and the Municipal League.
Bonnie Berk gave an update on the Budget Advisory Task Force. Marty Wine met with Karen Reed, the BAT Force coordinator, to discuss communications and information sharing between the two groups. A meeting is being scheduled to give Commission members the opportunity to learn about the BAT Force process and conclusions.
Commission members stated that the BAT Force work seemed of very high quality and would likely save the Commission a great deal of time and effort in establishing the context of their work.
3. Approval of Minutes
The meeting summary for May 20 was approved, with the following change:
Page 3: Steve Gering changed to Steve Goldblatt.
4. Operating Principles
Brian Murphy introduced discussion of proposed Operating Principles, stating they were proposed as amendments to the Commission’s already-adopted Temporary Administrative Procedures.
Concern was expressed that the proposed principle related to consensus did not adequately address the issue of minority opinions and minority reports. There was further discussion of the consensus model the Commission would utilize.
Dave Regnier, King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, was asked to comment on the Open Meetings Act and email correspondence. He stated that if the Open Meeting Act applies to the Commission, the Act would be breached any time a quorum is present and relevant information is discussed. Existing case law indicates that this would apply to phone and email correspondence as well as in-person discussion.
Commission members expressed support for all proposed principles other than that related to consensus. It was agreed that Berk & Associates would do further work on this section and present the proposed principles for Commission review at the next meeting.
Councilmember Irons: Discussion on the scope and vision for the Commission
Councilmember Irons presented two issues to the Commission:
1) Biennial Budget
· A number of local counties and cities have adopted a biennial budget, and all stated they continue to find the biennial budget preferable to an annual budget.
· Biennial budgets free agencies from a 8-9 month budget cycle releasing large amounts of staff time and resources.
· Financial savings associated with biennial budgets are often utilized in off years to investigate key issues.
· Councilmembers Irons and Phillips are advancing a charter amendment which would allow the Council the option of adopting a biennial budget. The Charter currently only allows for annual budgeting, and the proposed amendment would change the charter to allow either biennial or annual budget. A separate action of the Council would be required to actually adopt biennial budgeting.
· Adoption of a biennial budget would be an incremental process over two to four years. Departments would be shifted to biennial budgets one by one, starting with those with the most regular, predictable budgets.
· Timeline
o November 6: Charter amendment submitted to King County voters
o 6 months to develop ordinance for implementation
o Today, seeking endorsement of biennial budget by Governance Commission
o Optimistically, an implementing ordinance could be in place one year from now.
· State law requiring balanced budget would remain in effect. Off-years would involve a corrections ordinance, which would be an update, not a full budget process.
2) Reduction in the Size of the King County Council
· Proposal would reduce the size of the King County Council from 13 to 9 members.
· Business-based rationale: It is unfavorable to reduce staff without reducing management.
o Last year 10% of King County correctional officers and 2% of total workforce were laid off.
o There is a need to reduce costs at management level as well. Councilmember Irons stated he considered reducing Council salaries, but viewed that as a non-starter. Therefore focused on reducing number of Councilmembers.
· Key question is: can we make good decisions with 9 members instead of 13? If yes, then there is no rationale for having 13.
· Council grew from 9 to 13 in 1994, as part of the County’s merger with the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Since then the total area governed by the Council has shrunk 38%.
· Proposal would have no impact on Councilmember workloads, as each member would serve on the same number of committees.
· All news agencies which have taken a position on the issue have supported it.
· Questions and Discussion by Commission:
o Why is target 9 Councilmembers?
� Target is 9 rather than 7 or 5 given that County was governed by 9 Councilmembers for 24 years: proof that that number is effective.
o How to reduce from 9 to 13?
� At opportunities of turnover. Several current Councilmembers have expressed interest in running for other offices.
o What is approximate total cost savings to County?
� Estimated $2-4 million of total savings, or roughly $1 million per Councilmember reduced.
o A Commission member stated this could be used as precedent to consolidate the total number of elected officials in King County.
o As a representative of unincorporated King County, what do you recommend as a structure for best representing this part of the County?
� Councilmember Irons stated he supported differential voting or preferential voting options.
o What about a separate Rural Unincorporated King County Council?
� This has been looked at, but never acted upon.
5. Draft Work Plan Discussion
The Commission reviewed and commented on the draft work plan.
· Phase 1 will involve substantial input from outside groups and individuals. Suggested that the Commission provide groups with a framework for what they would like to have addressed.
· Early “problem statement” issued by the Commission would frame what the Commission views as the critical issues to be addressed.
· Suggestion to check Commission recommendations with BAT Force recommendations during Phase 3 or 4.
· Communications Subcommittee formed to discuss best approach to communicating Commission’s work: Dave Gering, Arun Jhaveri, Sharon Maeda, Bill Ptacek.
· The Commission will send introductory materials to groups which have been present at past Commission meetings, inviting their comment on the Commission’s proposed work plan, including Suburban Cities Association, League of Women Voters, Municipal League, Unincorporated Area Councils.
· It was suggested that the County’s Institutional Network (I-Net) system could be used to host interactive public meetings with populations in rural King County. (The I-Net is a fiber optic network which will connect approximately 300 public facilities in King County.) This could be done in addition to or as part of the Commission’s public hearings.
· he work plan should be considered a work in progress, with modifications made as the Commission’s work and understanding of the issues progresses.
· Commission would like to see comparative analysis of well-run counties in the United States, perhaps utilizing Governing Magazine’s rating system as a basis for selection. Clark County should be one of comparatives examined.
· It was suggested that an additional column be added to the one-page work plan summary reflecting interactive effects of elements.
6. Commission Discussion: Vision for the Commission’s Work
Bonnie Berk asked Commission members to list their hopes, fears, and dreams for the Commission’s work, product, and process. The following ideas and opinions were stated by one or more Commission members.
· End product should be viable and acceptable to King County government as a whole.
o Recommendations should be specific, effective, cost-effective, and responsive to community at large.
· County should focus on regional provision of:
o Public Health – physical, mental, physiological, environmental
o Public Safety – jail, sheriff, police, homeland security
o Public Works – roads, public transportation, utilities
· Vision of County government that people can be proud of.
· Many issues around realignment of responsibilities: State is looking at taking over judicial responsibilities.
· Should look beyond CX issues/services.
· Unincorporated issues.
· County should not provide direct services, but focus instead on regional issues.
· Ideal of minimal governance.
· KCGC is not a budget committee: should focus on broad, long-term governance issues
· Unincorporated County is a major issue.
· Ideally result would be conceptualization of an innovative County governance structure.
· Agreement in principle about local services, but in practice not sure who will do it: there are gaps in some areas of the County where the County is the only provider.
· Agreement that KCGC should focus on governance more than detailed budget issues, but must address funding/financing issues as well.
· The County needs rigorous financial management tools.
· No need to reinvent the wheel. Commission should look at comparables: best-run counties in the United States. Examine best practices.
· Fear that the Commission’s effort will not result in effective change.
· Focus on principles, not details. Start with big-picture principles and get into greater level of detail with time.
· The Commission should provide guidance on implementation of its recommendations.
· Forward Thrust ideal of citizen-based governance.
· How can County’s provision of public services draw on the strong local private sector for support?
· The KCGC provides an opportunity for groundbreaking precedent (particularly related to annexations and incorporation) which will apply to other counties as they urbanize.
· The Growth Management Act is failing, with elected officials afraid to finish the messy remaining tasks.
· It will be challenging for the Commission to progress from examining the CX budget to governance of King County as prescribed in its scope.
· The economy is a critical factor.
· Transportation issues are critical King County focus.
· King County should have a vision which gives focus and direction: “King County will be a sustainable King County in 2020.”
o Incorporate ideas of economic prosperity, environmental stewardship, and social justice
o Vision should be established via a grassroots visioning process resulting in a County Strategic Plan with vision, mission and specific goals and objectives.
· Process and results need to be political in order to be implemented. Goal should be a product that is implementable, not a study that sits on a shelf. Should address the underlying crisis the County is faced with.
· KCGC represents an opportunity to provocatively define the crisis that King County is in: the CX crisis is a symptom of deeper problems.
· “Swing for the fences”: Goal should be 2 to 3 big ideas, not lots of little ones.
· The truth always works.
In follow-up to points made about the importance of focusing on larger issues first, before delving into greater detail, the Commission suggested the following addition to the proposed Operating Principles: agree to not discuss governance issues for six months, including such issues as number of Councilmembers, partisanship, and elected vs. appointed members.
7. Administrative Items
· Dave Gering will be the temporary chair for the June 19 meeting.
· Berk & Associates will solicit interest among Commission members for leadership of the Commission – chair, vice chair, or co-chairs.
· After Councilmembers McKenna and Lambert attend the June 19 Commission meeting, additional Councilmembers will be invited to present to the Commission if they have a particular issue they desire to communicate.
· Email submitted to the KCGC website will be screened by Berk & Associates.
· BAT Force work will be focus of June 19 meeting.
·
Commission member homework:
send comments on draft work plan to Marty Wine.