Letter to the Editor: Proposition No. 2 Will Resolve Confusion and Restore Efficiency

To the Editor:

Much has been written about the larger issues involved in Proposition No. 2. Large issues are easier to debate. But, as in many cases in life, the devil is in the details. Notwithstanding criticism that the CRC didn’t do its homework, the CRC paid a lot of attention to detail.  Here is just one example:

When the Freeholders drafted the job description of the Administrator, they specifically included Section 3.43(1)(e) that designates the Administrator as the official responsible for preparing and presenting the county operating and capital budgets. Section 6.20 designates that official as the official to whom county agencies and departments are to submit budget requests.  Section 6.10(1) further specifically designates the Administrator (not the Auditor) as the official to prepare and present the budget to the Council. This is authorized by RCW
36.40.010, 030, and 050 that designate the Auditor “or other chief financial official designated by a charter county.” This would appear to mean that the Administrator is lawfully charged with the full obligation of budget preparation and presentation.

Our Auditor disagrees with the charter’s policy. She recognized that charter Section 3.20(2), after listing various county offices (including the auditor) provides “ These offices shall be re-­created by this Charter and, unless amended by this Charter, shall have the same powers and duties as in the past … .” But in our Auditor’s view as expressed in writing to the CRC, the charter’s assignment of budget responsibility to the Administrator has led to inefficiency and so her budget responsibilities should be restored to those set forth in the statute.

The legal and functional dynamics of separately elected and charter-­appointed officials at the same level are such that neither can dictate to the other. This is not something that our Prosecutor can resolve; both parties are his clients. For four years our Auditor to carried out her pre-­‐charter budget function and our Administrator ignored the charge that was placed upon him by the current charter. In the fifth year, our Administrator sought to carry out his mandated duties resulting in confusion and inefficiency. This charter inconsistency remains in effect today.

The CRC agreed with the Auditor’s policy analysis. Your vote for Proposition No. 2 will resolve this confusion and restore efficiency by deleting budget responsibilities from the Manager’s (replacing the Administrator’s) duties and replacing them with the flexible provisions of proposed Section 4.41.

Bill Appel CRC Member, Waldron