Guest Opinion: Lopez Charter Review Commissioner Presents Recommendations

By Richard Ward, Lopez Island

(Editor’s note: Richard Ward was elected one of 18 members of the Charter Review Commission. Following is his review of the charter and proposed recommendations, excerpted from the full document, which can be downloaded at Review of San Juan County’s Home Rule Charter. This document was presented to the Charter Review Commission on March 3. 

The excerpts follow:

Introduction

San Juan County’s Home Rule Charter was proposed by elected freeholders in 2005 and approved by voters that same year. It replaced the commissioner form of county government that is the standard, or “code,” form prescribed by the Revised Code of Washington for those counties that do not adopt Home Rule charters.

San Juan County’s charter requires periodic reviews, the first after five years of adoption and subsequent reviews every ten years thereafter. The first such review is being undertaken by the San Juan County Charter Review Commission (CRC), whose twenty-one members were elected in November of 2011. What follows is an analysis of the Charter, with recommendations, by Richard Ward, a member of the CRC writing solely on his own behalf, not for the CRC as a body.

…

Prior to the adoption of the Home Rule Charter…, each citizen voted for all of the County Commission, not just a portion of it, and each voter, as an individual, regardless of where he or she resided, had equal influence over the outcome of each election. Moreover, the County Commission had both legislative and administrative authority. And citizens voted county-wide for other county officials, such as auditor, treasurer, and assessor. Thus, the voters had great control over who ran their county government.

Commissioners were full-time employees of the county and were paid accordingly. They passed regulations and appointed county managers, over whose work they had oversight. Accountability therefore ran from the voters through their elected commissioners to those who performed the functions of government.

Voters also could expect transparency in the conduct of the County Commission. With three commissioners, any meeting of two commissioners created a quorum and therefore called into play the provisions of the Open Meetings Law.

Analysis

A question before voters is whether the Home Rule Charter has allowed citizens “greater control over the actions of County government.”

The Charter replaces the three commissioners who were elected county-wide with six councilpersons elected from districts. The argument was made that this arrangement provided each voter with a representative identified with his or her district and accountable to the voters in that district. It could be argued that this allowed each citizen greater access to the government. It also provided equality among the districts, as it was perceived that former District 3 (now District 6), the smallest of the commissioner districts, had one-third of the vote on the Commission with only one-sixth of the population. (More on this argument later.)

Also, the Charter places administrative authority in a division of government separate from the elected council. It provides for a county administrator “with all the executive powers of the County that are not vested in other specific elected officers by this Charter.” This administrator is not elected by voters. The Council, its staff, and individual councilpersons are forbidden to “interfere in the administration of the Executive Branch. They shall not give orders to, or direct, either publicly or privately, any officer, or employee subject the direction and supervision of the County Administrator, Executive Branch, or other elected officials.” This so-called “firewall” between the elected council and those who operate the government was included to prevent perceived abuses by elected commissioners under the previous form of government.

The Charter also provides for initiative and referendum, a feature not allowed under the commissioner form of county government.

And finally, the Charter allows for periodic review of its provisions, with any amendments to the Charter to be voted on by the people.

Recommendations

 How might the Home Rule Charter be amended to strengthen government accountability and transparency?

There are three changes to the Home Rule Charter that would significantly strengthen accountability and transparency in San Juan County governance.

The first of these would be to return to county-wide elections for members of the county council, both in primaries and in general elections. This change would be both legal and democratic.

 …

The second change would be to restore the elected council’s (formerly commission’s) authority over the operations of government. An amended charter could strike or alter the language of sections 2.31 and 3.43 to effect this change. The accountability of county managers to the representatives of the people would be thus clarified and strengthened. It may be prudent to retain some aspects of a firewall, but not the rigid strictures the Charter now requires.

The third change would be to reduce the number of councilpersons from six to three. A number of reasons support this change.

…

Conclusion

San Juan County is fragmented by geography. Changing to a three-member council, with administrative authority restored, and county-wide elections required, would avoid the further fragmentation created by the system of districts now in use. Accountability of every councilperson to all voters and full transparency for all proceedings would indeed serve the Charter’s goal of permitting citizens “to assert greater control over the actions of County government.”

Richard Ward’s full review may be downloaded HERE.