County Prosecutor Gaylord: Guide to 2012 Charter Propositions

Prepared by Randall Gaylord, San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney

Proposition 1 will reduce the number of council members from 6 to 3.  Each member must live in one of three whole island districts: 1) San Juan, 2) Orcas, or 3) Lopez/Shaw. Without regard for party affiliation, candidates are nominated by voters county-wide at a “top two” primary and then elected by voters county-wide.

Proposition 1 restores the council size and method of election approved by voters in the “basic charter” adopted in 2005.  It is the way commissioners were selected before 2005, except that the charter makes the positions non-partisan.  Proposition 1 specifies that the three council members will be paid a salary twice that of the six members in recognition that the positions are expected to be full-time.

Here are some questions to answer when considering Proposition 1:

• Do you prefer voting for all three council members representing all county residents or do you prefer to vote for one of six council members who represent 1/6^th of the county population?
• Are you comfortable with the entire county voting on the council member that resides nearest to you?
•  Will you take the effort to get to know candidates who live outside your district or island?
• Will council members make the effort to get to know what is important to you?
• Will three people have the diverse interests and skills necessary to do the work of the council?
• Do you prefer a council that works full-time or part-time

Proposition 2 changes the working relationship between the council and the administrator.  Proposition 2 ends a strict assignment of powers to an administrator and grants final administrative authority to the council.  But the council must appoint a county manager to help them manage the departments created by the council: public works, community development, health, land bank, general administration, parks and fair.

Proposition 2 retains all powers and duties of the other elected county officials — sheriff, prosecutor, auditor, assessor, treasurer, clerk and judges –and thereby requires their cooperation and collaboration to make the county work.

The most significant aspect of Proposition 2 is that it removes the strict “separation of powers” in Sections 1 and 3 of the charter and thereby allows the council to have more control in the administration of its policies.  To address concerns that one council member would be able to direct individual employees the new Section 2.42 protects the “chain of authority.”  No single council member is authorized to direct individual employees or other elected officials.

Here are some questions to answer when considering Proposition No. 2:

• Should the council be accountable for the work of the departments it created?
• Should the person(s) with final authority over the council’s departments be elected by the people or appointed by the council?
• Will a council with the help of a professional county manager have the skills needed to manage the people doing the work in the council departments?
• Which approach provides the balance between efficiency in operations and accountability to the people that you prefer?

Proposition 3 requires all meetings of the council and its subcommittees to be subject to the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA).   Whether a subcommittee meeting is subject to the OPMA is not always clear.  This provision will make the application of the law to subcommittee meetings a matter of local law.  The charter will require posting and notification of subcommittee meetings.

Here are some questions to answer when considering Proposition No. 3:

• Should the charter specify that all of the council’s work be done in the open, subject to the open public meetings act?
• Do you want to be informed of meetings of subcommittees of the council and have the opportunity to attend?