|
Clark County, WA: Home Rule Charter would change county government
Backers of a proposed Clark County home rule charter want voters in unincorporated areas to have the same powers over county government as they have over state government. "People need to have the opportunity to take their issues to the voters," said Vern Veysey, one of the freeholders who helped write the proposed charter. But that power of initiative and referendum is nothing more than the power to wreak havoc, say charter opponents. "It sounds like such a good idea to give people a voice when their government isn't listening to them," said Carrie Parks, a former freeholder who is now heading the campaign against the charter. "But the way it's taken over by special interests has corrupted the process." If voters adopt the charter Nov. 5, Clark would become the sixth of the Washington's 39 counties to choose home rule, which allows county government to differ from what's outlined in state law.
A tough sell In the past two decades, no counties that have attempted the switch to home rule have succeeded. With that in mind, the freeholders who drafted the charter decided to take a menu approach. The ballot first asks voters if they want a charter, and outlines the procedure for future revision. Then it asks if voters want two more commissioners representing them by district, and if they want the power of initiative and referendum. Clark County voters nixed an effort to write a combined city-county charter in 1982. In 1997, they rejected a bid to launch the home rule process, which commissioners revived three years later by putting freeholder elections on the ballot. Charter supporters say initiative and referendum are essential to home rule, evidenced by the fact that these powers are found in all five charter counties -- Clallum, King, Pierce and Snohomish and Whatcom. Many charter cities, including Vancouver, also have initiative and referendum. That made it confusing for residents of the unincorporated county last year when they couldn't vote on a referendum on a countywide human rights commission. Though both the county commissioners and the Vancouver City Council voted for the board's creation, only city residents had the power to call for its repeal. "If the state's founders and city's fathers have seen fit to have initiative, why not us folks who live out beyond the city limits sign?" said Skip Leuschner, a home rule supporter.
Booming ballot box Charter opponents argue you can't administer the $279 million-a-year operation that is county government at the ballot box. Voters often don't have the time to study measures, which can be very technical. That's why we pay government officials, Parks said. "If you get in there and meddle too much, you keep them from doing their jobs," Parks said. She warns that a local initiative could be used to hamstring county government and rack up legal costs. Conservative activist Kelly Hinton already has threatened to file initiatives against light rail and the county's involvement in the Regional Transportation Council. Charter supporters say the initiative and referendum provisions include safeguards: The measures can't address county employees' pay, the budget, repealing taxes or redistricting. Plus, a 1976 state Supreme Court decision limits local initiatives and referendums to "legislative," rather than "administrative" topics. "Frankly, (initiative and referendum) has not been used overwhelmingly by any of the five charter counties that have that power," said Bob Terwilliger, Snohomish County auditor who has been involved with that county's charter since its adoption in 1979. Snohomish County has had two referendums and no initiatives in 23 years. Whatcom County has become a case study, thanks to a 1995 Seattle University Law Review article by Dan Warner. He's a lawyer, Western Washington University professor and former Whatcom County councilman. That northwestern county has seen seven initiatives, five of which have been declared unconstitutional or illegal. For example, one initiative tried to bar a particular company from handling the county's garbage. One of the two still standing is probably illegal, too, but was never challenged, Warner said. It declares Whatcom County a "nuclear-free zone."
Debate or disruption? "Frequently these initiatives are more of an opportunity for people to make a statement than they are a really good legislative plan," Warner said. Nonetheless, they provide a necessary outlet, Veysey said. "Under the present system, if people are unhappy they have no way of getting past the county commissioners' decision and getting people involved," he said. Initiative and referendum can stir healthy debate -- and even put perennial issues to rest once measures are voted down, he said. "It makes people more informed to make better decisions, and can even help them understand, hey, people don't like your idea," Veysey said. Parks believes the opposite is true -- that initiatives and referendum actually erode public discussion. "We're losing our ability to have discussions because everything comes down to an ad campaign -- yes or no. If I had to go down to talk to county commissioners, I might learn from them and they might learn from me," Parks said. "We want initiative and referendum to give voice to the little guy, but it gives voice to people who can pay." That's less of a risk at the county level, said Todd Donovan, a nationally recognized initiative expert and Western Washington University professor. "It's a lot cheaper to do a petition locally than statewide," Donovan said. "So the threat of big interests being the only ones to participate in the process is less of an issue." The big risk in the mind of Doug Lasher, county treasurer and another charter opponent, is that initiative and referendum would just make it easier for county commissioners to avoid taking a stand. "They'll always be looking over their shoulder, or if it's a tough decision, sidestepping it," Lasher said. Warner, the expert in Whatcom County, agrees initiative and referendum can undermine the legislative branch of county government. The measures also tend to come up with cruder laws than a deliberative process does. "People get an initiative stuck in their faces. They don't have a chance to look at it. The signature gatherer says, 'Don't worry, we'll be able to discuss it during the campaign. But then the campaign is characterized by half-truths. Then people have to vote up or down. They can't pick it apart," Warner said. That said, Warner believes the power of initiative and referendum can be both good and bad. "It's when people think it's going to be their salvation that it's a problem."
ON THE BALLOT Initiative * A voter would be able to register an initiative petition on a single topic, as long as it doesn't address county employees' pay, the budget, repealing taxes or redistricting. * The petition would qualify for the ballot if it received signatures equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the last even-year general election. Signatures must be gathered in 180 days. * Initiatives would have to say how a proposal would be funded. * They would apply to the unincorporated county only.
Referendum * Registering a referendum would require gathering the signatures of 100 voters within 45 days of adoption of the ordinance it would repeal. * Once the prosecutor's office writes a 25-word summary of the referendum and registers it with the auditor's office, petitioners have 60 days to collect signatures equaling 5 percent of the votes cast in the last even-year general election to qualify the referendum for the ballot. * Referendums could not address ordinances regarding collective bargaining nor pay and working conditions of county employees.
Charter process The charter outlines these procedures for making future changes: * A 15-member nonpartisan board would review the charter within two to five years, as determined by county commissioners, and every 10 years thereafter. * Voters would be able to submit charter changes by following a process similar to the one for initiatives. * Commissioners also would be able to propose charter changes for voter approval.
Erin Middlewood covers Clark County government. Reach her at 360-759-8031, or erin.middlewood@columbian.com.
|